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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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