When interpreting the scope within the Bylaws, such as "end users", it goes hand in hand with "global public interest". Paul Wilson, APNIC's DG, a member of the ASO in ICANN likes to use an analogy of what we do as a technical community and he uses an analogy of a car but I am going to use his analogy and build on it. The average end user just enjoys the vehicle but behind the scene, there are manufacturers, standards and those who develop standards, monitor and implement standards at all levels of manufacturing, there are others who deal with insurance and product liability and guarantees and warranties. There are trade rules etc. However, those who work behind the scenes in the ecosystem and engage in vigorous debate, testing act as stewards and the average passenger or driver could'nt care less and would not be knowledgeable about the standards, they are just concerned with affordability and functionality. Users differ of course some are more savvy and some more technical than most. Categorizing end users is a dangerous thing because the danger is in not being inclusive as you can easily miss some. So to mitigate this danger, as the Bylaws were being developed (suggest you have a town hall with Marilyn Cade), the At Large structure was added on to voice global public interest and be seen to protect the end users so that end users have a mechanism to input into global public policy coordination within the ICANN ecosystem. This gives the ICANN legitimacy and if you consider the WTO, the ITU, we are in fact advanced in that we enable and allow for global public interest without just relying on governments to speak for their people. This makes the ICANN process democratic. Would the average person in Samoa want to know about gTLDs when the minimum wage is 86 cents (USD) maybe not now but maybe in a few years time, yes. So it is for these reasons and more that the ALAC is a steward for these things and if people think otherwise, by trying to go against this then I would suggest they engage in self reflection whether they should remain in At Large or move on to another constituency. It has been a long and hard fought battle by former ALAC chairs and members to establish the At Large and we should not begin to whittle away the responsibility of being stewards. Sala On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 9:59 am Alexander Schubert, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Evan,
Thanks for the definition of ALAC’s mission – I saw this differently. Since 15 years at ICANN – and still learning ……
Alexander
*From:* Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2019 7:45 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 10:32 a.m. Alexander Schubert, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
We should distinguish between two groups of “Individual Internet users". Obviously we are looking at the DNS and it’s use, right? I see these two groups:
1. The person who is using the DNS to navigate the Internet. That is: Visiting Internet domain names in order to reach websites or sending and receiving emails (among other use cases).
Yes, that is ALAC’s mandate
2. The registrants of domain names (insofar they utilize them for personal use)
There is an entire HALF of the GNSO, the non-contracted-party half, created explicitly to represent their interests. Indeed, that half of the GNSO is further subdivided into commercial and non-commercial groups.
I for example use alexander.berlin and alexander.lv as my virtual personal “calling cards”. I do not use them in any commercial activity. My needs and concerns (as Individual) about the governing of .berlin should be focus of ALAC in that respect.
The NCSG (and specifically NCUC) was made just for you. NCUC even has "non commercial user" in its name! Unlike ALAC it has voting rights in the body that can compel the ICANN Board.
(And Alexander, as a long time ICANN insider and former gTLD applicant, surely you must be aware of all that.)
Why do you consider yourself entitled to influencing ICANN policy through two different vectors? The non registrant end-user has ALAC alone.
You may have a problem with how well NCUC serves your needs as a registrant. But that's not ALAC's problem to solve, it has enough of its own 🙂.
- Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on._______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.