[CRISP-TEAM] 2ND CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft - CRISP Review

[Alan Barrett]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>On 2015/01/08 17:43, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> 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.

I thought that other parts of III.A.3 adequately addressed the comment
that had been made.  

>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.

Moving that paragraph to ene end of III.A.1 is OK for me.

>> 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)

My offer to work on it was hours ago.  I did not receive the .docx 
file so I did not work on it.  There's now not enough time.  I 
think we should defer this issueuntil after the second draft is 
published.

--apb (Alan Barrett)