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 > >