Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Eliot,

I'm agreeing with John here, but have one addition ...

>> Call it what you will, this sounds like NEWTRK revisited.
>> What will be different?
>
> At least three things... maybe.
>
> First, I/we have been told repeatedly that this is a new
> IESG and that, even were we to revisit NEWTRK exactly,
> we might well see a different result.

First.5, I might add that NEWTRK was in the perfect storm of ADMINREST, a 
flock of other GEN-area working groups and BOFs (ICAR? MPOWER? what were the 
others?) and pretty much zero transparency. I note that the last NEWTRK 
meeting, in Paris, was almost exactly the time that the IESG added scribes 
to provide narrative minutes - from the official secretariat-provided 
minutes, it's pretty much impossible to tell if any of the NEWTRK topics 
were ever discussed, and if they were, who on the IESG expressed concerns, 
and what those concerns might have been. None of those conditions are still 
true today.

Spencer