[CRISP-TEAM] Updated proposal draft - reordering answers edit

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Dec 24 10:48:39 CET 2014

Thank you very much Michael.

I just have one suggestion.

The paragraph below looks to me like a part of the proposal (proposal 
element (1)ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number 
To maintain stability and continuity in operations of the Internet 
number-related IANA services, very minimal changes to the arrangements 
listed in Section II.B are proposed, including the identification of the 
proposed initial IANA functions operator. As noted in numerous NRO
communications over the past decade, the RIRs have been very satisfied 
with the performance of ICANN in the role of IANA functions operator. 
Taking this into account, and considering the strong desires expressed 
in the five RIR communities' IANA stewardship discussions for stability
and a minimum of operational change, the Internet numbering community 
believes that ICANN should remain in the role of IANA functions operator 
for at least the initial term of the new contract.

I suggest we move this to the paragraph after describing 3 proposal 
elements. Attached is the redline of showing where I suggest to move.

Other than that, I'm happy with this.

Suggestion for the next step:
Let's post what Michael has sent us (2014/12/23 UTC 20:13) on the NRO 

(Since 12h has passed after Michael has shared the edited version, and
  I wouldn't want Michael to do more work on Chrismas Eve)

  - Explaining this is an edited version, simply changed order of
    answers according to questions with no changes in contents.
  - Once my suggestion is reflected, we can post this version as the
    latest edited version.


(2014/12/24 16:38), Michael Abejuela wrote:
> Hello CRISP Team Members,
> Please find attached the updated version of the proposal draft both in
> redline and clean versions.  I have tried to capture all of the comments
> and corresponding edits, but please let me know if you observe any
> discrepancies.  The references, acronyms and apostrophe issues should have
> all been caught in this draft.
> Izumi, I did try to relocate the section you referenced to be moved to
> Section IV or end of Section III; however, I noticed that the paragraph
> was specifically to respond to one question on Section III.  Therefore,
> instead of relocating the paragraph, I added the specific question above
> that paragraph language to be clear on the purpose for the paragraph.
> Also, I considered adding the specific questions to map against the
> content in Section V and VI; however, it appears a lot of the language
> generally responds to the questions of those sections overall.  So for
> now, I���ve kept it the same as it may require significant rewriting of text
> which may, if necessary, be prudent to do in the Second Draft output.  I
> welcome any suggestions or alternatives on this.
> If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.
> Thanks,
> -Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Response_20141224_izumi.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 85546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20141224/79a05e70/DraftResponse_20141224_izumi.docx>

More information about the CRISP mailing list