I agree with Milton Mueller --"In reality there is no such thing as a turn-key IANA transition proposal. Major pieces of any solution are going to have to be described in the final proposal and implemented over a period of months."

Greg, you are the only person I have heard use the term "turn-key" or like words. Nowhere has Larry Strickling said or indicated the proposal when submitted must be "turn-key"--if so, the CWG needs to tell Larry Strickling to send his US government lawyers here now because we are going to draft ALL the documents now and we need the US government's input now for "approved FINAL Drafts" before even ICG has had a chance to do its initial review!

If that is really what you and Jonathan and Lise think is needed or required after re-reading Milton Mueller's apt comments below, but are hesitant about contacting Larry Strickling and requesting the necessary participation by US government lawyers in order to have "approved FINAL drafts," I will be glad to do that for you and the CWG. However, I am also confident that Mr. Strickling's response will be that it is not necessary that the proposal be "turn-key" and that someone must have misunderstood what he was saying.

CWG is already very late in submitting its proposal to the ICG--the CWG proposal needs no more detail than the other proposals that have already been submitted, see the comment by Seun Ojedeji on point. In fact, you will note that at our last meeting that it was discussed how the voluminous detail in the draft proposal completed for earlier phases of the CWG work will now have to be reduced and summarized to be similar in scope to what was submitted by Protocols and Numbers.