Avri, yours is not a "scope" comment but an "optimal outcome" comment. 
In other words, Nicolas thinks all changes, even radical ones, should be "in scope" and you think radical changes should be avoided for reasons of stability. 
I agree with N that the scope should allow us to _consider_ anything that does not violate the NTIA criteria. I believe that many people will argue against _implementation_ or acceptance of the more radical changes, but I see no reason to rule out considering them. 

--MM 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IANA transition coordination group: some
> requests for feedback
> 
> On 13-Jul-14 23:54, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> > On the "scope of the work of the transition" I agree with Sam's wording:
> > it should be thought very widely as choosing and planning a new
> > institutional arrangement. All possible institutional arrangements are
> > possible candidates and the scope of the work of the transition should
> > positively not preclude any conceivable such arrangements.
> 
> On this, I tend to look for the minimum change that can be made to achieve
> for continued operations and stability while achieving the necessary other
> conditions.  I think it is important to keep as much of the existing institutional
> arrangements in place as possible, being sure to meet the necessary
> accountability and other requirements.
> 
> avri