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

[Michael Abejuela]

Hello everyone,

Thank you for all of the great feedback and comments.  I have caught up on
the emails sent over the past couple of hours and am incorporating changes
into the draft now. I will circulate an updated version ASAP. If you have
any questions, please let me know.

Thanks,
-Michael

-- 
Michael R. Abejuela

Associate General Counsel

ARIN

3635 Concorde Parkway

Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 227-9875 (p)

(703) 263-0111 (f)

mabejuela at arin.net

 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, copy, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.   If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.







On 1/8/15, 6:38 AM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

>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)
>
>_______________________________________________
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp