"Participation parity." Marc Rotenberg. On Sep 17, 2006, at 11:17 PM, 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