[CRISP-TEAM] 2ND CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft - CRISP Review
nurani at netnod.se
Thu Jan 8 12:51:41 CET 2015
On 8 jan 2015, at 12:44, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 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?
I agree, which is why I posted the question to LACNIC.
But maybe this can be done after the second draft. It doesn't change the content of the text, simply the format.
>>> 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.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP