Andrew,

I don't think is an issue of trying to get something "exactly right." I tend to believe "done is better than perfect" (though I have to remind myself of that, sometimes).

I think it was more an issue of getting it "good enough to go," and there were concerns raised at that level.

So this is not an issue of distraction, it's an issue of not wasting time by launching teams that are not scoped well enough to work well.

Greg.

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 04:22:54PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
> of .int and .arpa). On the other hand, I recall a number of concerns
> raised on the last call about how the topics were carved up on this initial
> list (which I believe was only intended to be a rough draft).

I recall that too, but I didn't have those objections, so I think
those who had worries ought to propose changes or different groups or
something.

(I mostly feel that getting the desire to get delineation exactly
right is a distraction from trying to make some progress.)

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab

Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet

666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022

Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428

gsshatan@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com

www.lawabel.com