Hi all I've been hearing some concern from the Numbers and Protocols communities regarding how any veto of the IANA Budget might affect their IANA services. The notion that the Names community should through its Community Mechanism or planning process make decisions on that leaves some nervous. So my first suggestion is: *what if we change the decision-maker for a veto/reconsideration of the IANA Functions to a specific group created for that purpose, with representation from the Names, Numbers and Protocols communities*? Leave aside the question of enforceability for the moment and think about the principle. My second suggestion for debate, and I realise this is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, is: if we can make the IANA budget veto/reconsideration workable as per suggestion 1, *could we defer the veto part of the ICANN budget debate for WS2, and simply do the incorporation of enhanced community feedback and challenge along the lines the Board proposed*? Would that meet our requirements (can we get it done after WS1 given other WS1 powers being enforceable)? Would it meet the CWG's requirements? I am in solution mode with this email, hope it is helpful. best Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *