Dear Colleagues,

Thanks to all for their comments and feedback.  I want to try and summarize where we are in the discussion and see where we can go from here.

1. Merger of CN and T: I have heard no disagreement on this principle.  So at a minimum we can assume that at least CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2 form a new TSG-CT.

2. Naming: Although there is a wish not to change WG names, I have heard no objections to the principle that the WGs are named after their parent TSG.  To avoid confusion, the short name should be derived from the TSG name and the WG number.  Migrated WGs can choose to include their old designations in reports, liaisons, etc (e.g., formally known as T1) for as long as they feel necessary to allow continuity and ease the transition.

3. Moving SA5->CT: We have heard objections from SA5 officials saying they do not want to move.  It has been noted that much of the O&M work is more related to UTRAN than to CN.  I have heard other comments supporting the move.  The supporters/objectors seem to be falling into much the same lines as we had with the SA5 WGB->CN discussions.

We seem to have 3 possible alternatives:

Alternative 1: Original proposal
 CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2, SA5 -> CT; T1->RAN; T3->SA

Alternative 2: SA5 stays in SA
 CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2 -> CT; T1->RAN; T3->SA

Alternative 3: T3 also moves to CT
 CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2, T3 -> CT; T1->RAN

All alternatives fill the original goal of cost savings since one TSG is eliminated.  My belief is that reorganizing is a bit like surgery. It is better not to cut the patient open twice if you can help it.  So I would prefer that we take a bit longer to see if we can agree on the appropriate place for SA5 and T3.

Since we are not pressed for time, I would like to extend the discussions on these 3 alternatives for another week.

I have my own opinions, but will send those in a separate mail to avoid biasing this summary.

Regards, Stephen