[sorry this has become very long. i just want some things to be on record. decide yourself whether it is interesting and helpful enough for you.] Milton, I am well aware of the effect that you call "veto power" in consensus processes. I have experienced my share of what you call "obstructionism" too. That's just something we have to deal with. It all depends on the definition of consensus. See my pragmatic definition of "consensus" in this thread and we can discuss this further. Now about being responsible: look at it from the perspective of those IANA customers that do have robust and credible processes and who can indeed come to consensus within a reasonable time. Should their fate indefinitely be subject to "veto power" from those that cannot come to consensus? They will likely say: "Of course not!" I would consider it irresponsible of these communities to allow themselves to be taken hostage by those communities that will not deliver.The responsible course of action for them is to try hard to get as broad a consensus as can practically be achieved. But once it becomes clear that this is not happening within a reasonable time, they will have no choice but to document this and to propose a transition for those parts of the IANA whose customers can agree on a proposal. Note well that I am personally much more flexible about the "reasonable time" than some others appear to be. I consider it much more important to have the broadest possible agreement on a well considered proposal than to finish in time for the current contract period running out. But it cannot take indefinite time and constant progress must be evident. An assertion by one community that their area is just more controversial or complicated than others will only go so far. At this point in time all areas are permeated by "politics, public policy issues, and conflicts between economic interests." It is not obvious to me how the benefits of consensus about self governance are substantially different among the communities. I am sure that for instance both the IETF and the RIRs could credibly argue that their participants constitute a significantly larger share of industrial activity than the total names business. So there is even more money at stake and more potential for all sorts of conflicts. The RIRs could credibly argue that they have successfully managed running out of a very finite yet economically critical resource: IPv4 addresses; they could take the view that this is much more complicated to get right than distributing an essentially infinite name space. People could take the view that all that is needed is that other communities get their act together to the same standards. After some time the sentiment may well be that "the names should just get on with it." It is all a matter of perspective. Such assertions and the discussions about them will not be helpful to us. They will only create antagonism that we do not need. We all have to do our homework and we will have to help each other doing it as much as possible. We will have failed if we do not come up with a workable proposal that only has opponents whome NTIA can safely ignore. This will not only preserve the status-quo. It will also show very clearly to the world that our self governance does not work. I still believe that everyone around our table does not want that to happen. Daniel PS: My argument against our group making decisions for particular communities is indeed in the first lines of my message. In my experience nothing good has ever come from giving in to that particular temptation. Experience is a strong and totally convincing argument for me. Others have already mentioned practicalities such as creating the opportunity for an end-run around the particular community and increased resistance based on "the wrong people" making decisions. Daniel PPS: We can discuss debating style over a beverage. When I say I agree with X then I mean I agree with what they have said in the particular context. Daniel