> On Aug 12, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Not at all a fatal flaw.


> 
> As for your give all the SG in GNSO extra voice: The SGs are at the next
> level down in the organization and make up the groups that need equal
> footing in the GNSO.  I admit that this balances is currently flawed, as
> if is 3 commercial to 1 non commercial. but that is not a material
> discussion tot he design of the SMM at the higher level of organization. 

Thank you Avri for addressing a very important question on  the GNSO, although I´m not so sure why the GNSO has to be analysed on a second level only. The risk of capture “through" the GNSO is large, and its representation not even close to the membership model, as you just showed us.


Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: [log in to unmask]
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7173 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA

> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 12-Aug-15 15:59, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L
>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Or, if you believe in "equal footing," why not have all GNSO
>>> Stakeholder Groups, NCSG, RySG, RrSG and CSG, have the same number of
>>> votes in the community mechanism? Why don't SGs qualify for "equal
>>> footing?"
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Very good question on the composition and representation of
>> stakeholders in the GNSO, as opposed to the one member model & NonCom
>> model.
>> 
>> 
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> _____________________
>> 
>> email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>> +506 8837 7173 (cel)
>> +506 4000 2000 (home)
>> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
>> _____________________
>> Apartado 1571-1000
>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus