Alan,
I have to disagree, for reasons stated at length in my response to Alissa. The Principal Terms clearly state that the CCG has a role that goes beyond mere advice, and I think some of that was lost in the first draft. I also think it's incorrect to characterize the approval rights that the CCG has (and which are expressly contemplated in the Principal Terms) with regard to actions that the Trust wishes to take as a "mechanism for controlling the Trust." As drafted, the Trust initiates all of the actions it will take in connection with the IANA IPR. As long as these actions are consistent with the views of the communities, the Trust's actions will not be constrained at all. In no case is the Trust being "controlled" (except arguably when it is directed to terminate an IANA operator being terminated by an operational community, and I think that is entirely understandable). I am somewhat surprised that you would characterize even that critical action as intended to be "informational." Clearly it has to be more than "informing," which carries with it no element of how one might choose to respond to that "information."
The numbers community made two key points regarding the IPR in the transition proposal: "IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community" and that these assets must be "used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community." In addition to being consistent with the Principal Terms, I believe these drafts are well aligned with these two concepts.
Rather than going on at any more length, I'll refer to my prior email for more detailed thoughts.
Greg