<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p>Would it not be better for the CWG-Stewardship to just go neutral on this matter (like the IETF) and let the CRISP team's view prevail because I don't understand the essence of a cross-operational community group when one of the group currently have no specific
direction/view on the subject of discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: This is where Seun and I agree. The simplest way to avoid continued problems is to implement the specific proposal that the CRISP team has proposed. The only critique I have
heard of that proposal is the ‘accountability’ issue regarding the IETF Trust, and that is not something I take seriously. The issue seems to be who can be trusted to keep the IANA mark and domain accessible, and the IETF has from its origins treated the Internet
protocols and standards it produces nonproprietary. Indeed, global compatibility and nonproprietary standards are deeply ingrained in the IETF culture, so I can’t think of a better trustee for the IANA domain and mark.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>Hopefully we will recognise that time is ticking and an issue as small as this could indeed affect the overall transition from proceeding.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: Indeed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>