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