<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?</span></blockquote></div><div><br></div>Alissa, <div><br></div><div>Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:<div><div><br></div><div>The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?</div><div><br></div></div></div><div>Russ</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>