|
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 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature