LSE Report devalues civil society?

[Marc Rotenberg]

"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