[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Jan 13 13:36:14 CET 2015
Thank you very much to Michael Alan and Bill for working on this.
To Alan's comments - in short I agree with all the changes suggested.
On 2015/01/13 21:25, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Here���s the integrated document. Note that this does _not_ attempt
>> aesthetic page-breaks. I���ll wait on that (and a final, more
>> thorough, copyedit) until all of the substantive changes from the
>> January 12 deadline are added.
> This looks good. Thank you very much for all the hard work.
> A few things that I noticed while reviewing it:
> * The numbering has all been changed, from things like I.B.iii to things
> like 1.2.3. I prefer the straitforward 1.2.3 style, but I thought we
> had decided to keep the confusing I.B.iii style for consistency with the
Consistency with RFP may be preferable but don't have strong opionion.
> * Several of the headings or bullet points are quotations from the RFP.
> In such cases, I think we should not edit them. For example, if the RFP
> says "Description of Community's Use of IANA", I think we should not
> change it to "Descripotion of Community's use of the IANA", even though
> we think that "the IANA" would be better. Similarly, where the RFP says
> "A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity", I am
> uncomfortable with deleting the "(s)". There are many more examples of
> this sort of change.
> * In section 2.1.2, where it says "The community engages in regional
> policy development process facilitated by each RIR ...". I think
> "process" should be plural "processes".
That makes sense - five processes.
> * "AFRINIC" was changed to "AfriNIC" in several places. The
> organi[sz]ation itself now uses the all-caps style "AFRINIC" in
> marketing material.
OK. Let's be consistent with the use by AFRINIC.
> * In section 2.1.3, where it says "the NTIA has no oversight role in
> Internet number resource policy-making related to IANA Numbering
> Services", I think the sentence sounds clumsy. I suggest "the NTIAhas
> no oversight role in policy-making related to IANA Numbering Services".
That works for me.
> * In section 2.1.3, it now says that the NRO NC is "a group comprising
> fifteen community members selected by the RIR community" but it no
> longer says that there are three from each RIR. If a new RIR were to
> emerge, the "three from each RIR" would remain, but the "fifteen" would
I leave it to RIR staff's comment on what works best.
(I agree with Alan's observation)
> * In section 2.1.3, when it talks abouut arbitration, the previous text
> was very closely aligned with the ASO MoU, which talks about "ICC Rules"
> and "Bermuda". The new text has replaced that with talk of "a neutral
> venue", which is not alogned with the existing ASO MoU. I think that
> the old description shuold be retained, because this section is supposed
> to describe existing arrangements.
> * In section 3.1.3, typo in "consisten with current mechanisms" should
> be "consistent with current mechanisms".
> * In section 4.1, "A new agreement specifying IANA operation of the
> Internet number registries can be established well before the September
> transition", please add the year "2015", and I think we should still
> refer to thet date as a "target date", not as though it were definite.
> So, I suggest "A new agreement specifying IANA operation of the Internet
> number registries can be established well before the transition taget
> date of September 2015".
I agree. Should be described as the target.
taget --> target
> * In section 4.1, "Ee propose to simply reconcile the contracting party
> with the policy authority, without changing service levels or
> reporting". Is that true? Might we not take the opportunity to make
> minor changes to the service levels, and will reporting not be directed
> to a different place instead of the NTIA? So I suggest "... without
> significant changes to service levels or reporting".
I'm OK with this.
> * In section 5, the first item "Support and enhance the multistakeholder
> model" seems to be missing a bullet.
> * Generally, we should check that dates are consistently formatted, and
> that they always include a year. I can live with the US-style "Mmmm dd,
> YYYY", provided it's consistent, and I suppose I can live with
> mentioning the year only once per paragraph.
> * In section 6.2.3, "ARIN 34 meeting in Baltimore" doesn't mention what
> state or country that city is in. Similarly, in 6.2.4, "Santiago" is
> mentioned without a country. I suggest giving the country every time a
> city is mentioned, and also giving the state or province if the city is
> in a country where that is the common practice.
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP