Hi Avri, This was an action item for the staff from the call on 25th November. I believe they have already put in a request for the document with the IANA staff. Maybe Grace or Marika can update us on the request. "*ACTION staff : Ask IANA staff to share details on 7.3 that might be available for the public and/or **online*" On 17 Dec 2014 17:29, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Is that 'transition to a "successor contractor" plan' available to the CWG?
avri
On 17-Dec-14 05:26, Matthew Shears wrote:
Alan
Section C.7 in the current contract addresses issues of continuity of operations - particularly C.7.3, according to which ICANN should have a transition to a "successor contractor" plan in place at the moment
Matthew
On 12/17/2014 3:38 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As someone whose ICANN 'job" is supporting/defending the needs of Internet users, I will point out that security and stability of the IANA functions is of paramount importance for the ALAC as well.
I look forward to the seeing how that can be assured in a potentially disruptive switch of the IANA operator where it may be that there is no continuity of either staff or systems.
Alan
At 15/12/2014 03:16 PM, Donna Austin wrote:
All
I largely agree with Christopher. I think we are creating complexity where it does not necessarily need to be, but as we are here I want to reiterate a few comments I made on the RFP 3 call earlier today, and these comments come from a gTLD registry operator perspective:
· Operational stability and reliability of the IANA service is imperative to the business operations of registry operators and as such this should be a critical consideration in any discussions.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship