Public Comments on IANA proposal

[David Post]

At 10:38 AM 4/26/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>[SNIP]  SO:
>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

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?

David





*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150428/10c4a61d/attachment.htm>