The IESG has discussed the re-organisation proposal and the comments that we have received. Thank you for providing feedback! We have decided to move forward with two parts of the original proposal, continue thinking about the third one, and have identified a fourth item that needs even more focus: 1. We are asking the Nomcom to seat a third AD for the Routing Area. The desired expertise for this position is the same as the one already used for the position that was open noting an increase in YANG related work in the RTG Area, and the three working groups that will move from INT to RTG. The position is for two years. This change addresses changes in work that is coming to IETF, making the management of this work easier, and it is anticipated that the work-load for RTG Areas will be normalized as a result. 2. We have been implementing a change in how flexible the assignment of ADs is to areas. This is necessary in order to ensure that we have sufficient agility to perform our management tasks, and is demonstrated by our re-assignment of some of the OPS Area working groups to non-OPS ADs as one of the OPS ADs has taken on broader responsibility for IETF YANG work. As we rebalance, this change will affect how WGs are assigned to ADs, and this will require changes in how the IESG operates as well as changes to some of the data tracker tools. Note that this is a change with regards to which AD manages specific working groups. The assignment of working groups to areas will not change as a result of this procedural change. An AD can be the most suitable manager for the working group, even when the working group itself remains associated with a different area. An area is not merely about the ADs managing it, it is also category of topics on a particular branch of technology, a designation in our agendas, usually overseen by one or multiple directorates, and scheduled so as to avoid too many conflicts within the area. Areas are also loose collections of people working together, and the assignment of ADs to particular working groups should not have an effect on any of these other aspects of an area. This change relates only to agility, and the IESG fully recognises the observation that a key focus for organizational changes in the IETF should be in moving work from the IESG to working groups or other entities. 3. We have heard the feedback from the community that there is concern about creating a "mega-area" formed by combining APP, RAI, and TSV. We will think about this proposal further and will come back either with a stronger rationale or an alternative plan of more normal-sized areas: any proposal for structural change will reflect the feedback you have given us. 4. With respect to ensuring that AD workload is suitable for a broad of class contributors willing to take on the task, the IESG clearly needs to take additional steps. Agility and right area structure helps spread the workload better across ADs, but other changes are needed. But this is a continuous process. Our desire to push document approval Comment and Discuss resolution more to the working groups and e-mail has significantly reduced the length of our tele chats in recent years, for instance, and we are starting a project to eliminate errata processing as an AD task. We will return to this topic with further proposals later as well. Jari Arkko for the IESG