Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:17:31 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
Organization: |
IP Justice |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|