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