[CRISP-TEAM] 2ND CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft - CRISP Review
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Jan 8 13:01:08 CET 2015
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Paul Rendek 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.
>> 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.
>I think we can have a compromise here... I suggest removeing the last
>sentence of this text and agree that we can move it up to the last
>paragraph of III.A.I as Izumi suggests. That way we keep it high level
>as we have many times agreed on the calls.
That's fine with me.
> I have one other point I would like to raise. Section III.A.4
> - Establishment of a Review Committee - I see alot of new text
> that goes into detail. I remember agreeing on the call to keep
> this high level and a matter for the RIR CEOs and Boards to
> administer in detail.
We agreed on the call that it would be similar to the way the
NRO-NC is constituted.
> Plus, this text is different from the text I have been
> circulating on section III. Can we revert to the text that
> appears in the revisions that Nurani and I have been sending in?
I don't recall seeing any Review Committee text in your drafts. I
thought that you were working on the SLA principles. I sent my
text on 5 Jan, with an update on 7 Jan.
> I have attached the document again for your reference and use.
I still don't see any Review Committee changes there.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP