Thanks, Robin.

I did not realize the p. 87, #20 trick. And the different weighing PLUS
veto is really a problem, and a challenge for us.

Norbert

=

Robin Gross wrote:
> The LSE report includes a number of interesting recommendations to
> reform the GNSO.
>
> A couple of them I like ( #23 reducing prescription provisions in
> ICANN bylaws relating to GNSO operations).
>
> And at first I was encouraged by the LSE's recommendation to reduce
> the number of constituencies from 6 to 3.  Recommendation #19 suggests
> 3 larger constituencies to represent i) registration interests; ii)
> Business, and iii) civil society.  I like this idea because lots of
> big media companies like Disney, Time Warner, and News Corp get two
> constituencies to control.
> BUT, as I read on further, buried on page 87 is recommendation #20
> that describes how Business and Registration should get 5 votes each
> and civil society is only worthy of 3 votes in the recommended
> restructuring for GNSO.  So it seems some constituencies are more
> equal than others.
>
> I think we need to take on this notion that the public interest should
> only get 3 votes to private commercial interests' 5 votes.  Especially
> considering the registration interests are inherently commercial in
> nature also.  Sure, LSE suggests 3 wild-card NomCom votes, but ALAC
> and NCUC will be loped together and diluted in this plan, so
> non-commercial public interest voices will receive even less weight
> than in the existing ICANN GNSO scheme.  We have to fight the idea
> that civil society should only get 3 votes to BC's 5 votes and a BUILT
> IN VETO.  Why should commercial interests get a veto right on public
> policy but not pubic interests?  This is not acceptable.
>
> Robin
>
>