Evan,
But the current process forces everything to fit into the GNSO's assumptions and worldview​.
Of course it does - because that is why the GNSO exists in the first place. The GNSO is not some "power block" or lobbying organisation for the domain industry. The GNSO exists purely as *the* mechanism for formulating gTLD policy. And unlike the GAC or even ALAC, anyone can participate in the GNSO process, either through the many constituency groups (remember that the "domain industry" is only represented in two of the four constituent groups and seven constituencies), or even directly through the nomcom process.
This forces outsider to either bend their message/request to fit with that worldview
It forces the outsider to fit into the ICANN PDP process, yes. And that is what the GNSO position is all about - it is not whether the name of a particular organisation deserves protection or not, but whether the GAC/"small group" recommendation is compatible with existing PDP processes, and if not, how it can be resolved.
The current design of the PDP is inherently biased against participants that are not GNSO stakeholder groups.
What specific participants are, in your view, not catered for in the GNSO stakeholder group model? Julf