[CRISP-TEAM] A few formating changes to Section III
nurani at netnod.se
Fri Jan 9 14:15:49 CET 2015
On 9 jan 2015, at 12:17, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> I support these changes. I think they make our points more clear and the
> document more readable.
I agree that adds clarity.
> 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.
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP