[CRISP-TEAM] Term of the contract & wording agreement/contract

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Michael Abejuela wrote on 29/12/14 13:56:
> While this is definitely an issue to be discussed, it may be the type of
> matter addressed in the actual drafting of the proposed contract rather
> that put into the proposal at this stage; but that is something for the
> team to decide.

As we discussed on the call, the terms and conditions seem indeed to be
too detailed to be included in the response at this stage. However, we
may want to specify certain requirements for the transition to
subsequent operator, should we decide to move to another operator.

For our reference, here is what is included in the IETF response:

      It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
      part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
      out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
      current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
      [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
      operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
      a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
      ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
      minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
      or other resources currently located at iana.org.

And indeed, the provisions C.7.3 and I.61 of the NTIA contract is
something we would probably like to see substituted with in the future
new contract.

Andrei