[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions

Michael Abejuela mabejuela at arin.net
Tue Jan 13 13:36:26 CET 2015


I agree with your comments, particularly with making sure we want to
remain consistent with the RFP including not changing any of the language
taken verbatim from the RFP as well as numbering.  To that end, if we need
to revert any changes, I am happy to do so immediately after the call
today and the team's feedback on this draft as well as incorporate any
further editorial changes.


On 1/13/15, 7:25 AM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Here¹s the integrated document.  Note that this does _not_
>> attempt aesthetic page-breaks.  I¹ll 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 RFP.
>* 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
>* 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".
>* "AFRINIC" was changed to "AfriNIC" in several places.  The
>organi[sz]ation itself now uses the all-caps style "AFRINIC" in
>marketing material.
>* 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".
>* 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 change.
>* 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
>* 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".
>* 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
>* 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
>* 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
>--apb (Alan Barrett)
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net

More information about the CRISP mailing list