Patrik, As you (personally) are seeking an assertion without a mechanism for validation, what you seek is not technical, and out of scope for a working group. Technical liaison is necessary for a working group attempting correctness, however, a bureaucratic liaison is not, and is in the domain of the IAB, which may be random persons, or it may not be, but that's NomCom's business.
See rfc2850, 2 (f), "Extenal Liaison". The co-chairs of IDN have more than enough to do, with the limited means they have, without attempting to also perform some opportunistic function of the External Liaison, even at the request of document editors, who are themselves no doubt acting in good faith. The statement "the wg need a statement from JET" is "true" if the WG chairs find that rough consensus exists to require some statement. This "truth" however is still at odds with the External Liaison responsiblities of the IAB. As co-chair of ENUM are you responsible for the institutional relation with the ITU? That is the issue as I see it, a transient WG as the holder of a fragement of an ongoing relationship, or the ongoing IAB as the party that has that ongoing, and unified, relationship. It doesn't help that you want an assertion without a mechanism for validation, as a tossed coin is usually sufficient for that limited, and uninteresting, end. Eric
