Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries) to Informational RFC

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

>>> 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