Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 8 12:22:07 CET 2015

Alan, Michael and all,

On 2015/01/08 17:43, Alan Barrett wrote:
> Thank you very much, Michael, for consolidating all the changes into 
> this document.
> I believe that all the changes that I proposed have been incorporated.
> I have the following comments and suggestions:
> 1. A change to section III.A no longer makes sense.
> A re-write of parts of section III.A mean that this paragraph no longer 
> fits in its current position just before III.A.4:
> [[[
> While there are no concrete needs or plans at this point, the NRO EC may 
> in the future determine that the IANA functions related to number 
> resources should be transferred to a different contractor. In such a 
> case, selection of a new contractor shall be conducted in a fair, open 
> and transparent process, in line with applicable industry best practices 
> and standards.  Associated requests for proposals, responses, and the 
> contract itself, shall be published.
> ]]]
> I think that this paragraph can be removed, because the ideas in this 
> paragraph are adequately captured under "viii. Continuity of 
> Operations", but I'd like confirmation from others.

I agree it looks odd in where it's place but I have concerns about
simply deleting it.

This was added to address a point made on the IANAXFER list, and the
CRISP Team agreed to incorporate. We have to reconsider why we haven't
incoroprated this feedback if we delete.

My suggestion is to move to the last paragraph of III.A I, as initially
suggested on the ML, or we address this in the editorial version, if
this idea is supported.

> 2. Diagram in section VI.E.
> I think that we should publish a text version of the document, and
> others might want to publish translations of the document, but the
> diagram in section "VI.E LACNIC regional process" makes that difficult.
> Could we replace the diagram with a textual description?

If this could be done quickly I'm OK.
(I see you are offering to work on it, so I think it's fine)

> 3. Inconsistencies in formatting
> I noticed a few inconsistencies in formatting, such as lines with
> different indentation or bold or italic attributes from other similar
> lines, or paragraphs separated from their neighbours by only a line
> break without a blank line.
> 4. Numbering under III.A.3
> Several of the points under "III.A.3. Contract and Service level agreement"
> have non-hierarchical numbers, like "ii. Distribution of Internet Number
> Resources by the IANA Operator to RIRs".  I think this would be better
> as III.A.3.ii.

I'm OK with this suggestion, if we could number III A list the same.
I feel the format of numbering used in  listing proposed elements in III
A, and number of each title should be consistent.

> I am willing to work on all these issues, if there is agreement, and if
> I could have access to the origiinal .docx file.

I'm happy for you to work on them as you described, except 1.


More information about the CRISP mailing list