Dear all I think the meeting in Istanbul was very useful and I do like the idea of having a structure within ICANN - such as an affiliate company (embodying the Multi-stakeholder model) which effectively fulfills the current Stewardship role provided by NTIA awarding the contact for service to ICANN/IANA staff. I also think that ICANN as the Policy body (especially for gTLDs) has an effective role in making sure that it facilitates the forum and the community driven consensus position for Policy going forward. I feel (as many of you already know) that IANA staff (employed by ICANN Corporate) are doing a good job at delivering the IANA service to the global Registry Community, be that gTLD, ccTLD, RIRs, or Protocols Registry. My question is: Assuming that all three groups, naming, protocols and numbers, can actually put together a cohesive plan for IANA transition what happens if one party, say (for example) the RIRs are not happy with staff employed by ICANN meeting their needs and prefer a different service provider - what happens then? Best and happy holidays.... Paul