<html>
<body>
At 10:38 AM 4/26/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">[SNIP] SO:<br>
In the current configuration, PTI is not in the position to issue RFP,
it's rather the parent (ICANN) that is in the position to issue RFP based
on the recommendation of IRF team/possible escalation from CSC. The later
which is not yet very clear. So PTI is basically entering the current
shoes of ICANN and ICANN will be entering the shoes of NTIA
post-transition<br>
</blockquote><br>
And this may be a dumb question, but just to clarify ... if ICANN enters
the shoes of NTIA (the current contract "Administrator"), and
PTI enters the shoes of ICANN (the current "IANA Functions
Operator"), I assume there will also be someone stepping into the
shoes of VeriSign (the "Maintainer") that will have a contract
with both ICANN and PTI - is that corect?<br><br>
David<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
******************************* </body>
</html>