Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 8 12:44:52 CET 2015

On 2015/01/08 20:38, Alan Barrett 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.

I think the idea of this sentence it to state that " new contractor
shall be conducted in a fair, open and transparent process"

I'm also OK to address this by adding it in "viii. Continuity of
Operations" as you mentioned but probably want to confirm with Paul ,
Nurani and others if they are OK.

>> 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.

Noted, thanks.

>>> 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.



More information about the CRISP mailing list