<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div></div><div><br></div></div><br><div><div>On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Jari Arkko <<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><blockquote type="cite">I don't think it is appropriate for people who were actively engaged in developing a proposal, and who come only from the affected operational community, to be the ONLY ones evaluating it for the ICG as a whole. That lack of objectivity will not have the legitimacy we need. <br><br>On the other hand, I think it is important for someone who understands how the proposal evolved and why certain decisions were made to be present during the evaluation. So I would call for both types of parties to play a role in the initial evaluation, rather than excluding one or the other. <br></blockquote><br>This seems very reasonable. Thanks.<br><br>Jari<br><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>