I think this thread has heated up a bit unnecessarily. Everybody relax! :-)

Lets take a step back and look where we are.

The first thing to recognise is that the actual CWG proposal under consideration is still fine. The text
that we are debating is a part of an appendix that has some initial text for the implementation phase
of the proposal. Not final text for agreements, nor even consider by the whole CWG. This text, and the
implementation effort, is clearly subject to further work. So, we are talking about something that
we all together need to get done in the implementation phase.

Everybody in agreement with the above so far? Good. Maybe we could get this also
acknowledged by the CWG chairs, which would reduce the worry on ICG and other
community sides, I think.

The second thing to recognise is that we all from the different communities have to be OK
with whatever the final implementation is. I certainly hope we all are on board with
this as well. Please also be mindful that various alternatives may have some impact on
other community processes, including timelines. Hence the way that the ICG question
was formulated.

Of course, we still *do* need to find a way to implement this properly and have everyone
agree. I won’t say more about what I think would be the right ways of doing that in this
e-mail. But I will say one thing. No matter what the solution is, there will be specific
agreements that specify what the rights and responsibilities are. Just because someone
is holding something doesn’t mean everything is OK. That someone will have contracts
with others granting them rights and will be contractually required to honour that and
continue to point to iana.org subdomains or whatever technical solution is used for
the domain part.

Jari