Hi,

I thought N was making an outcome comment.

I sit corrected.

BTW, NTIA requirements include stability.

avri

On 15-Jul-14 11:00, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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
> 
>