Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Hi Richard,

On 9/1/14, 10:18 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:

>Thank you.  That risk  can be avoided by proposing the new text as a
>specific amendment to the existing agreement.  That way there is no
>implication that the whole agreement is open for renegotiation.

I agree with Brian and I don’t think the above can really hold in
practice. That is, in a contractual negotiation between two parties,
neither party can prevent the other from suggesting changes once it
becomes obvious that any changes at all are desired.

Alissa

>
>Best,
>Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Brian E
>> Carpenter
>> Sent: dimanche, 31. aout 2014 22:02
>> To: rhill@hill-a.ch
>> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Eliot Lear
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
>>
>>
>> On 31/08/2014 22:07, Richard Hill wrote:
>> ...
>> >> The existing
>> >> text (which was ratified by the ICANN Board in 2000) leaves no
>> >> loophole. Personally
>> >> I think the risks in changing even one word in the existing MoU
>> >> are too great.
>> >
>> > What risks do you have in mind?
>>
>> Pressure to change something more fundamental as a result of
>> opening the document up at all for this relatively small
>> point.
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>Ianaplan@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan