RE: Moving forward

["Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > We first need to officially hear from the working group 
 > which ones are
 > going to be needed for the minimum set, than we can decide on the
 > exact logistics for how the work will proceed. I have asked the
 > workinggroup chairpeople to do this in manner that allows us to
 > quickly move forward.

=> Understood, but see below.

 > 
 > In general, protocol work will indeed not happen in the Operations
 > area. However, the careful reader will note that I used 'in general'
 > and there could be circumstances where there is more 
 > expertise in this
 > area and where it is more efficient to do the work in this area.

=> I certainly noticed 'in general' and it scares me! 
I know that you're trying to be flexible and not categorically 
rule things out, however, I hope you can appreciate that
this might make things quite blurry and give the wrong 
impression to people. Given the lack of appreciation
of WG members' opinions in this WG, I'm worried that
this process will be messy, but I'll wait and see. 

FWIW, there was unanymous concensus in the Seoul meeting
to standardise all mechanisms being considered at the moment

Hesham

 > 
 > David Kessens
 > ---
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================