<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">All<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I think I’ve captured the changes suggested from the call this morning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On the big issue of ‘technological changes’ I’ve flagged that the Design Team has concerns about the CSC being responsible for anything other than monitoring. I’ve also provided some new text to try to overcome that concern,
which I’m repeating here for ease of reference. I’m happy to take this out and just leave what we had and express our concerns if others do not think this is a viable option in that it does not overcome our primary concern.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The CSC, in consultation with registry operators, is authorised to discuss with the IANA Functions Operator ways to enhance the provision of IANA’s operational services to meet changing technological environments; as a means to address
performance issues; or other unforeseen circumstances. In the event it is agreed that a material change in IANA functions services or operations would be beneficial, the CSC reserves the right to call for a community consultation and independent validation,
to be convened by IANA, on the proposed change. Any recommended change must be approved by the ccNSO and RySG.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The IANA Functions Operator would be responsible for implementing any recommended changes and must ensure that sufficient testing is undertaken to ensure smooth transition and no disruption to service levels.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m conscious that we need to wrap this up today and get to the CWG, but it would be useful if we could defer until such time as Staffan and Martin have had a chance to review.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Donna<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>