It was my understanding that we (this group) were awaiting feedback (mark-up/comment) from IETF's counsel and from NRO's counsel. Indeed, CWG originally held off on sending the document to our counsel; our plan was to send our counsel a package that included the other communities' counsels' comments on the document. We only sent the document to CWG counsel after being told (possibly more than once) that IETF's counsel's feedback was not imminent.
Until I asked my question above, it was my still understanding that we were waiting for that feedback. I don't believe I was alone in that understanding. I'm a bit surprised to find we are not waiting for anyhing. I didn't see anything sent to this list that said IETF's counsel had reviewed and signed off on the document (something saying the Trust was okay with the document would not have conveyed anything about what counsel was doing or saying).
It was also my understanding that we would be weighing and trying to "harmonize" the feedback from each group's counsel . It's typical when multiple parties are working on a document for counsel to have a mark-up and/or comments that is sent to the other parties (apart from whatever feedback they gave solely to their client).
I suppose what you're saying is that IETF's counsel had no mark-up or comments to give to the other parties and that the document is acceptable "as is" (as a jumping off point for the full agreements).
Well, at least this has been clarified.
Greg