jon - sorry for the delay in replying. fundamentally, i think it comes down to accuracy in labelling. if the sip folks want to do conferencing, then they should have a working group to do that. however, the charter for that working group should not imply that the scope of the working group is anything beyond sip. a reasonable person reading the charter would conclude that the scope of the working group is somewhat more generic than sip. if the goal for this working group is to be generic, then the charter is likely unacceptable since it assumes "facts not entered into evidence", i.e., it is sip-centric, and there is a fair body of deployed work that manages to do conferencing very well without using that acronym. if that is not the intention, then i suggest that the working group be called something like sipxcon to avoid any confusion. as to whether the working group belongs in apps or tsv, a generic conferencing working group clearly belongs in apps. however, a sip-specific working group can probably comfortably reside in either. /mtr