Sorry This didn't go to the list, so resending JAM Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

Hi Patrick One very important thing to note is that individual internet users are different from individuals acting as businesses, academia, etc. My role as an academic at work is very different from my personal internet user life - my concerns are different. As an individual, I may have an Internet-related business. So my concerns may align in that role with the Business constituency, and not with the individual internet user. So I think the definition of individual internet users needs to be really well crafted to separate it from the concept of an individual in other roles. And if we get that done, then there's no discussion left as to whether we can have individuals, groups, organisations etc as At Large members. Or individual academics as NCUC members etc. For example, my University may not be interested in joining NCUC as an institution (that's a lot of paperwork etc) but they may be perfectly willing to pay for my professional membership in NCUC if my academic interest (research etc) coincided. Jacqueline

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

...

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