This seems unwarranted

"the processes *surrounding the continued operation of IANA functions 
during this period of transition*, must be carefully specified, and 
managed."

because to refer to the need for developing a plan before the 
development of a plan, well frankly that's one plan too many ... but 
also because it is is slightly pushy pushy towards ICANN receiving the 
function. But since it is only ever so slightly pushy, and in the form 
of paying lip service to good transition planning, I suppose it is 
acceptable still.


I view it as a concession on my [our] part to interests more already 
committed than we may collectively here be to the outcome of ICANN as 
the receiver of IANA functions.

So, Bill, for me it is an expression of support that is not the same as 
me merely saying "looks good", same as if I would have just said "I 
support the statement".

Nicolas


On 2014-03-23 12:18 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> This is so much better than the previously drafted statement. Thank you so much for the changes.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> We have a new proposed version of the IANA transition statement.  Please give us your comments by the close of business Tuesday March 25, Singapore time, so that we can send the amended version to the other groups. <Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 23 March 2014-MMSP.doc>
>> Stephanie Perrin