> The statement to take this "further in the context of a WG (hopefully > with additional security/privacy expertise)" basically asks the rest > of us who have no interest in this work to spend cycles on it anyway, > in order to do damage control in a WG. The reason we do consensus > calls on charters is so that we *don't* need to do that for ideas that > are clearly problematic and shouldn't be chartered. this is a terrible scaling problem. lack of guts in the iesg devolves into a massive time burden on a lot of people. randy