Resolved =)

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: stewardship comments final look

There is only one unresolved issue in the comments on the CWG IANA stewardship proposal. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRSgwIy2T_i8coErf5z3JC0LHoFhjes3K7fWhOxqDZ8/edit# 

James Gannon has inserted a statement " We would also like to call for a period of enhanced collaboration between all three operational communities with regards to the interdependencies between the CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN proposals, a cross functional contact between the chairs of the CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN facilitated by the ICG to discuss this possibility."

I oppose adding this language because a) the ICG already facilitates compatibility among the 3 operational communities, b) this seems to be calling for a new committee, which I fear will move the process further away from bottom up; c) the IANAPLAN people have made it clear that they are interested only in what benefits or harms IETF and not at all in what the other communities want, so putting them in this position, in my opinion, is an invitation to let them influence our proposal in accordance with their needs, when they have shown no inclination to provide a reciprocal level of influence. 

Milton L. Mueller