[CRISP-TEAM] Review Committee changes

[Alan Barrett]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>I realised Alan did volunteer to work on this part. Thank you Alan for
>volunteering, in addition to other sections you have volunteered to work
>on text. I really appreciate it.
>
>>> To follow up from the 8th call, below are the principles I had suggested
>>> to incorporate in the 2nd draft.
>>>
>>>>> - The review report will be publicly disclosed
>>>>> - the review committee selection and process conducted in an open and
>>>>>    transparent manner.
>>>>> - If the NRO EC determines that a change is needed with the IANA
>>>>>    numbers function contract; the RFP for a new contractor will be
>>>>>    conducted in a fair, open and transparent process in line with
>>>>>    applicable industry best practices and standards.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, in regards to the interval of the review, Alan has made a
>>> suggestion to define the maximum interval but allow to shorten the
>>> inverval of the review as needed.

I have made several changes relating to the composition of the 
review committee, the frequency of review, and the process for 
selecting a new contractor.

I attach a .docx file with the changes in redline form.  I 
based my changes on the file "CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft 
24122014-IPR-issues.docx" that was recently shared by Andrei.

--apb (Alan Barrett)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft with Review Committee issues 20150106-redline.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 29015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150106/512bc386/CRISPIANAPROPOSALDraftwithReviewCommitteeissues20150106-redline.docx>