Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive. May I please have a response to this? --MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.