LSE Report devalues civil society?

[Robin Gross]

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