Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response

> > > It sounds like we want the same thing here, but when I read the draft,
> > > I don't see it actually saying that if there's a new IANA operator, we
> > > need a new equally good contract. That seems to me to be worth making
> > > explicit.
> > I think that's a fine suggestion.  The discussions and conclusions of
> > the WG, so far as I can tell, were exclusively focused on the ICANN/NTIA
> > relationship, and your suggestion reinforces the conclusion by inference
> > (we CAN change should the need arise) and it gives people a view as to
> > how we would see to the continuity of the service.
> Yes, I agree with that and indeed I suspect it is most people's working
> assumption, to the extent that we overlooked writing it down ;-).
I agree with all of the above. Eliot, did you make a change with regards to 
this?

Jari

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail