Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC. As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be the only entity to represent individual internet users. The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments welcome. ---------------------- 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. Relationship with other ICANN entities 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.