>>> 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail