Let me contribute an essay: When a person or group asks you to make a decision for them, it is never wise to just do as they ask. Sometimes it may be wise to help them see the question before them more clearly. Often it is best just to look at them patiently until they make up their minds. One person who has taught me this by example was Jon Postel. </essay> This says it all, so if pressed for time you can stop reading right here. ------ Application to the question being discussed: If the names communities cannot come to consensus about the transition of NTIA's role by themselves, then it would not be wise for the CG to have any part in doing this for them, even if the names communities ask for it. The best the CG can do is to produce a unified proposal from the parts that *do* have consensus in their respective communities and have those communities come to consensus about that unified proposal. It may be that the names communities do not realise what is at stake for them and that it is in their interest to agree on *something* within a reasonable time. If they cannot manage this by themselves then then the CG cannot make this happen magically and should not try. Rather the CG should make a proposal that leaves out the IANA functions concerning names and disband. If the names communities should find that they need help coming to consensus it is up to them to find that help somewhere, possibly in arbitration or some other process help. That is up to them. But if they come to us we should say 'No'. NB: This is not specific to "names". I just wrote it with reference to this particular thread. Summary: Daniel fully agrees with Alissa and substantially disagrees with Milton.