<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Jefsey <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<div>
<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Copyright-FAQ.pdf">
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Copyright-FAQ.pdf</a><br>
These issues are probably to be better studied when refering to the IANA
issue. The USG cannot delegate what is owned by ISOC.</div></blockquote><br></div><div>Jefsey - </div><div> </div><div> Could you be a little clearer? Do you believe that the NTIA must maintain its present </div><div> IANA functions contract as a result of the above reference? To the extent that ISOC</div><div> and the IETF are "global customers and partners of the IANA services", and any </div><div> transition plan proposed meets their needs and expectations (a requirement stated by</div><div> NTIA), why would the above reference document pose any issue?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></body></html>