[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal
nurani at netnod.se
Tue Jan 13 08:43:40 CET 2015
Dear Izumi and all,
I have read through Paul's suggested changes. Quite a few and the very last minute!
It seems to me that there are a different types of changes suggested:
1. Straightforward editorial changes
2. Suggestions on consistent use of terms
3. Changes that may require discussion in the CRISP team and/or consultation with the community before implementation.
If it is of help to the group, I offer to go through Paul's comments and identify changes that fall into the categories (1) and (2). I can send that list to the CRISP group for review. If we all agree that they are easy to deal with, they can then easily be incorporated by Michael, Alan and Bill.
I will then leave it to Izumi to take the lead on the suggested changes that fall into category (3).
Is this helpful?
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal
> Date: 12 januari 2015 15:44:25 CET
> To: NRO IANAxfer List <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> Dear Izumi, and all on the CRISP Team,
> First, thanks sincerely for your work in producing this response to the ICG RFP on behalf of the numbers community. It has been a huge task I know, on a tight timeframe and at a particularly challenging time of year for many ICG members. I do hope that your incredible efforts will be rewarded with a successful outcome, but in any case you all deserve the thanks of the RIR communities for your dedication and hard work.
> Second, I have a set of suggestions provided as revisions in a Word document which is available via Dropbox here:
> (The original source was converted from PDF, so I’m afraid that the formatting has been lost, but I think the revisions and explanatory comments are clear enough.)
> My main aim here is to propose consistent terminology for the sets of IANA resources, services and registries which are of relevance to the proposal. I found that the current draft document uses a lot of different wordings for the various IANA services and registries, which could make it hard to be sure that the same things are being referred to. My main aim here is to make the ICG’s task as easy as possible, in interpreting the document easily and clearly.
> In addition to these changes, I have made a small number of other suggested edits, all relatively minor, including a few typos. I’m happy to further explain any that aren’t clear.
> I’ve not suggested any changes to the essence of the proposal, which I do support.
> With best regards and thanks again,
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
More information about the CRISP