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.