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 > >