(Revised to correct typo.) Wendy, I don't know what time the Board meeting is, but hope that this reaches you before... The ALAC has already made a number of statements on the role of users on the GNSO, and none of them (in our minds) conflict or even greatly overlap with the roles of the ALAC. These statements stand. In essence, the differentiator between someone (or group) that is at home in At-Large vs one who should live in the GNSO is not based on the description of the user (or user group), but rather on their specific interests. Participation in the GNSO implies a specific interest in gTLD policy issues, and implies a willingness to put significant energy and time into the creation of gTLD policies and related issues. At-Large, has a wider scope and by definition has a more diffuse focus. We will never cover ALL ICANN issues, but attempt to address the ones that we believe have a higher impact on users. There may well be organizations that fit both descriptions (although I don't think there will be many). There are certainly people participating in these organizations who may wear both hats at times. We would not like to see rules preventing these contributors from working in both domains. Particularly in the developing world, there are far too few skilled people with the interest and energy to address issues in ICANN's domain, and we do not want to see people locked out for arbitrary reasons. Although the fear of capture is real, this is not likely the venue where it is problematic. To the extent that "individuals" as opposed to organizations should participate in the GNSO, we have tended to prefer a definition of constituency close to the current model. That is, like-minded people form a constituency to put forward their viewpoint. Two other issues were raised at the ALAC meeting which are not directly related to the user issue, but may be applicable to other Board discussions. 1. The concept of a "individual registrant" constituency is something that would be of value. However, it is not clear where this fits if the constituency does (and perhaps should) include both commercial and non-commercial members - it is easy to imagine that their views on many things will be similar, and it is not at all clear that dividing them over two SG serves any purpose. 2. The current description of the proposed Business Constituency seems to focus on the concept of a member having to be incorporated, which seem to exclude many of the small entrepreneurs who comprise the new model of Internet-based businesses (perhaps embodied by the example of a typical e-Bay seller). Alan