Howdy,
I don't have any problems with this allocation policy, but I see two
things in the draft that should probably change. The appointment
should be by the IESG, not the RAI area director or directors; this is
the traditional appointment mechanism and it allows other ADs to
contribute, even if RAI leads. For services that are not SOS-related,
other areas may have significant input. Second, some text in the
document that describes the conditions under which new entries are
approved or denied is very useful, as it guides the later incumbents
in the role. In the URI space, for example, there are two strains of
thought about minting new schemes: one is that it should be
restricted to cases which absolutely cannot be met by an existing
scheme; the second is that the schemes will be minted anyway and that
registration largely serves to avoid interoperability problems.
Having the working group provide general guidance on this point is
very useful, in my opinion.