> 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