Cheryl wrote:

>In the discussion of new members, we were unable to articulate a clear 

>statement of the criteria for organizations and the standards for
diving 

>large and small organizations.  

 

I don't recall that we tried to articulate a clear statement of the
criteria. 

 

>Under Milton's proposal, "large organizations" get 4 votes.  The
current 

>criteria is only in terms of numbers of employees or members, not in
terms 

>of how involved or organization is.  Thus, I could join as my
university 

>and get 4 votes, but it is unlikely that anyone but me would be
reviewing 

>and approving policy.  This criteria for 4 votes, especially given that
the last 

>election garnered only 23 votes total, should be discussed by the new 

>NCSG as a whole.

 

You shouldn't join as your university unless your Chancellor approves it
and is knowledgeable of your actions here.

While I agree that we should explore better criteria for the small/large
divide, I don't think something as subjective as "how involved" someone
is could be used as a standard

As for the "only" 23 votes standard, I suggest you compare it to other
categories of GNSO actors. We'll come out looking fairly good. But I
agree, more of our members should be active and there should be more
members.