Public Comments on IANA proposal

[James Gannon]

For the moment the Verisign component has not been examined in detail.
Its expected that there will be no change in that at this time.

From: David Post
Reply-To: David Post
Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 13:47
To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>"
Subject: Re: Public Comments on IANA proposal

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       <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com         <http://www.davidpost.com         />
*******************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150428/8e57e887/attachment.htm>