The standing requirement ("materially affected") is too restrictive

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The standing requirement that one be " materially affected" is 
excessively legalistic and narrow.
ICANN exists to serve the community of internet users.  Many ICANN 
policies affect huge numbers of people - the number is measured in the 
millions if we encompass only domain name registrants and exclude those 
who are merely affected less directly.
The "materially affected" limitation adopted from United States court 
practices.  The rational for those court practices does not apply to ICANN.
The "materially affected" standard ought not to apply to questions 
raised by a member of the public about an act of ICANN, an entity whose 
very existence is premised on benefiting the public interest.
The proposed "materially affected" standing limit will further empower 
those who have financial interests in matters regulated by ICANN and 
correspondingly disempower those who merely suffer, en masse, a shared 
harm that is difficult to measure on an individual basis.
The foundation for standing should be broadened to recognize several 
factors.  At a minimum it should encompass any person who uses a domain 
name, IP address, or IANA protocol parameter.  At a minimum it should 
encompass any person or entity listed in any "whois" entry.  It ought to 
encompass any person or entity that constitutes the "public" as 
construed by the California law of "public benefit" corporations under 
which ICANN has obtained its legal existence. Ideally, as has been said 
"the internet is for everyone", and thus "everyone" ought to have 
standing to complain when ICANN goes awry.
            --karl--
            Karl Auerbach
           (Former publicly elected member of the ICANN Board of 
Directors for North America)