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

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