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.