Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts

Hi Greg,

• ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions.

I think it is still appropriate to limit the SLAs to naming functions, since numbers and protocol parameters have their own MoUs that I believe cover SLAs. However, if this is not the case (or if the current IANA Functions Contract contains SLAs beyond naming functions that should be carried over), then "naming functions" should be changed to "IANA functions."

Inserting “naming functions” is accurate. You are correct that the numbers and protocol parameters have their own MoUs and SLAs. Thanks Konstantinos