[CRISP-TEAM] A few formating changes to Section III

[Andrei Robachevsky]

I support these changes. I think they make our points more clear and the
document more readable.

Andrei

Izumi Okutani wrote on 09/01/15 12:06:
> CRISP Team,
> 
> 
> As I raised in an e-mail post and at the call yesterday, I'd like to
> suggest 3 formatting changes to Section III.
> 
> It does not change any text/contents
> 
> The reason why I think is important is, it should be easy to capture the
> core elements of our proposal in Section III.
> 
> I feel the 2nd draft is more difficult to capture this, as we added
> details into our proposal, while it was improved in our published draft
> to some extent by deleting details of Review Commitee.
> 
> I don't want to add too much on our plate as we have issues to dicuss
> our position but if it's not controversial, it is my preference to
> address this.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> Please let me know especially if you have concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed changes: (See attached word file for redline)
> 
>  1. Move the paragraph which describes how the proposal is positioned
>     with other function, under III A. from III A3
>      - It looks like general principles for all elements not just SLA
>      - Slims SLA part with the core of what it proposes
> 
>  2. Move the sentence "The Internet numbering community proposes that a
>     new contract be established between the IANA functions operator and
>     the five RIRs."
>      - Easier to capture the proposal by describing what we propose in
>        early paragraph
> 
>  3. Lower indent for "IANA Agreement Principles" part
>      - To Highlight the overview of SLA proposed element
>      - Easier to keep in mind about 4 proposed elements without getting
>        lost into details of SLA points.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Izumi
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>