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:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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