<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;">
Perhaps I am showing my ignorance of a nuance here but I would have thought it was the other way around, ICANN is replaceable, the IETF and RIRs will walk away and select a new IANA functions operator outside of ICANN if necessary, or at least that has been
my understanding and reading of their ICG submissions?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Very open to correction by more educated people than myself here!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:53, John Poole <<a href="mailto:jp1@expri.com">jp1@expri.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">IETF
or RIRs or anyone else--governments included--choose not to participate in IANA or ICANN, let them walk--no one is irreplaceable. ICANN, the IANA functions operator, should never be subject to extortionate demands from any source.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>