​Yes, but inside the ICANN bubble even the term "users" is ambiguous. There is even uncertainty whether an ICANN "user" is either 

a) an owner of a domain name

b) someone accessing the Internet through a computing device, who may or may not be using the DNS to do so

Consider the NCUC, which by its very name is intended to represent "users" within the GNSO. Ownership of at least one domain name is a pre-requisite of NCUC membership. So what constituency (that is, a full voting GNSO component, as opposed to a non-voting advisory body) represents non-domain-owning Internet "users".

​Indeed. But what say have they traditionally had within ICANN?

Of course, there is the ALAC, which has a Bylaw mandate to speak for end users. But, the gap between speaking and being listened to has been, while slowly closing, still rather wide.

I don't have to go far into the world to see a perception of ICANN as a compact between domain sellers and domain buyers that considers only their interests, with general indifference to consequences beyond those two groups. There has never, in the time I have been involved as a volunteer here, been any core conversation about the ethics of enabling dictionary words to be commoditized in a manner that goes well outside the bounds of trademark treaty. Other non-debated core values have not only led to the maximization of duplicate and defensive domains, but now seem to depend upon them for some participants' business models; these fundamental choices clearly did not consider -- and certainly did not engage -- the broader world.

​That's the theory.​

​The ongoing (and recently escalating) friction between the ICANN board and its two "global public interest" Advisory Boards​ indicates that this mechanism is not as effective as it should be.