I've been traveling and only now have had time to weigh in.

But send the draft out, yes. We should have our statement be part of the record. (And not be late!)

One suggestion for future drafts/statements:

Reading it carefully I am struck with the word "customers"

Separability increases the leverage of the customers of IANA over performance,.....

Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA functions, have more of a say as to which transition proposal is acceptable?

Isn't the function an "assignment" not a purchase?

Neither ICANN nor IANA should be known as a "market" with "customers" no matter what the monetary transactions are.

DeeDee

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree...we have to get the documents in on time. Milton sent this around at least two weeks ago now...in hindsight, we (the policy cttee) should have set a deadline and said all comments in by x, it goes out x plus two days.
cheers SP

On 2015-02-26 9:50, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

Milton,

I would suggest that NCSG not only give some members "the pen" to work on documents, but assign "a gavel" to one member who can first warn of deadlines, and then pound the gavel and say "document closed and sent".
Many of the nuances that are important don't really get carved in stone when documents are tabled and get struggled with in the ongoing processes. It is better to submit a more-or-less consensus document with a few warts to be struggled over later, than to submit no document at all.

Sam L.

On 26/02/2015 9:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Well, the CWG meeting discussing the surveys was this morning. Early.
I wasn't able to attend, so maybe someone else can tell us whether we missed the boat.
Probably so. This is very frustrating.

http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org