On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:17:13PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July." (Message from Jonathan Robinson, 02 July 2015). That, I presume, was the basis for the ICG issuing its consolidated proposal.
As I understand it, there was such a meeting and there will be more. But as I tried to say in Buenos Aires and again in my last message, meeting with "the leadership" of the numbers or protocol parameters community(ies) on this does not help at all if the plan is to do anything inconsistent with the proposal as published. For (as I think you know) "the leadership" of those communities can only act as a conduit for taking things back to their respective communities. The IETF in particular simply does not delegate people to speak for the IETF, except in extremely constrained ways (such as the IAOC for negotiating contracts).
Establishing an understanding with the IETF Trust so that the details can be completed as part of the implementation schedule is, in my mind, the number one priority.
I agree; though I would make a friendly amendment that, if the CWG thinks the IETF Trust is somehow unsuited (as for instance Avri has suggested) then with even greater urgency we need to get to work on the new trust organization or else figure out what minimal changes to the Trust agreement would put the names community at ease. My view is that we need to pick the path of least resistance consistent with the ICG proposal. Best regards, A (for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com