Hi,

Not at all a fatal flaw.

The groups that have been established withing ICANN's architecture each
represent a different vital grouping.

the 3 SO that deal with the specific operational issues
the 4 AC that deal with users, governments, security & stability and
root server operations.

These are what needs needs to be balanced so that no single group of
interests overwhelms the others.  An inblance in the SMM destroys the
ICANN architecture. That would be the 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. 

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