Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for the clarification, I had indeed misunderstood.

Do you know whether ICANN would have any objections if the new language only
enters into force if and when the current contract with NTIA is no longer in
force?

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 'Andrew
> Sullivan'
> Sent: jeudi, 30. avril 2015 17:30
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with
> ICANN
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:16:36PM +0200, Richard Hill wrote:
> > Thank you for this. Can you please post the exact language that ICANN
> > has difficulty with?
> 
> We're waiting for confirmation as to whether the language as it stood
> was still covered by the normal "private negotation" rules, so I don't
> think I can release the text at the moment.  We're working on that,
> however.  This is in keeping with the normal way the IAOC develops
> these annual supplemental agreement or any other IAOC agreement.
> However, I should note something:
> 
> > However, we are discussing arrangements that would hold if there is
> no
> > longer any contract between ICANN and NTIA
> 
> That is not what we were discussing.  The IETF and ICANN were
> discussing the annual SLA or supplemental agreement.  It would come
> into effect at signing, as all the previous ones have, and since ICANN
> still has an agreement with NTIA right now, ICANN's current agreements
> are (quite correctly) a constraint on what ICANN can do.  I'm sorry if
> that wasn't clear in our update.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Andrew (speaking for myself)
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan