Hi Jari,
On 12/16/14, 4:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
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?
Yes. The text I propose to include for this purpose is as follows:
The MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the
arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only
be undertaken after serious consideration.
+ In that case a new IANA
+ functions operator would be selected, and a new agreement with that
+ operator would be established.
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature