[CRISP-TEAM] HTML and text versions

[Bill Woodcock]

A few minor editorial points:

> The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have a long-standing and straightforward operational relationship with IANA. IANA maintains the global pools of Internet number resources

Regardless of whether other people misuse the language, we should not.  IANA is an acronym, not a proper noun.  Thus, it should be grammatically treated as though it were the expansion of the acronym, not as though it were a stand-alone name.  So it should be "The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have a long-standing and straightforward operational relationship with the IANA. The IANA maintains the global pools of Internet number resources…” because it’s grammatically incorrect to say "The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have a long-standing and straightforward operational relationship with Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority maintains the global pools of Internet number resources…” 

So, I propose we fix that throughout before finalizing the document.

> The global Policy Development Process (gPDP) is formally described in "Attachment A" of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding (ASO MoU), signed by ICANN and the RIRs in 2004... This MoU includes provisions for resolving disputes between ICANN and the RIRs or their communities. <>
The name “ICANN” (which, through common usage, has become a proper noun, which is why we don’t call it “the ICANN”) is being used in two different ways here.  In the first instance, we’re saying that ICANN (in its role as the IANA functions operator) was a signatory to the contract.  That’s a matter of fact, it’s correct, and it’s what we mean to say.  However there are a number of other places where we say “ICANN” when what we really mean is “the IANA functions operator, regardless of who it might be.”  The latter instance seems more like one of those, to me.  I propose that we take a look through the document at each instance of “ICANN” and check to see whether we mean ICANN per se, or mean the IANA functions operator, and correct any instances that require correction.

> The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA functions operator's accountability to the open, bottom-up numbers community.

The referent of “bottom-up” is “policy-making process” not “numbers community.”  As formulated here, this says that the numbers community is upside-down.  Whether true or not, I doubt that’s how we wish to represent ourselves.  I propose that we remove the phrase “open, bottom-up” because it adds nothing to the sentence, “bottom up" is incorrect, and “open” makes no sense without it.

> Decisions made regarding the contract would be based on operational circumstances, past performance and input from open, regional communities.
> By building on the existing Internet registry system (which is open to participation from all interested parties)...


Methinks we doth protest too much.  We do not need to slather the word “open” over every sentence.  Readers will have gotten the point after the first few instances and will be given cause to wonder at the reason for this degree of overuse.

> The necessary agreement proposed for IANA operation services for the Internet number registries can be established well before the NTIA target date for transition (September 2015), as there are no changes to existing service levels or reporting that are being proposed, only a change in contracting party to align with the delegated policy authority.

Passive voice, and a little over-wordy.  I believe this would suffice while losing no substance:

"A new agreement specifying IANA operation of the Internet number registries can be established well before the September transition, as we propose to simply reconcile the contracting party with the policy authority, without changing service levels or reporting."

There are numerous more minor errors of grammar and punctuation that should be corrected prior to the drafts being finalized.  As I said before, I’d be happy to perform a copyedit on whatever final draft is produced, to harmonize the usage and correct the grammar.

Yes, I know I’m coming off as a grammar martinet here.  But I’d like the document that we produce not to be dismissed by readers on account of its superficial form.  So, no Comic Sans, and I hope that we catch any avoidable grammatical mistakes.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150111/f67d6710/attachment.html>