[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Tue Jan 13 13:43:42 CET 2015

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Michael has already worked to incorporate edits from Paul so 
> we have two options to work on other parts (ie not simple to 
> incorporate):
> a. See updated draft from Michael an incorporate the part where no one
>    has raised issue about changing the language.
> b. Not incorporate the parts other than what's listed by Nurani
> Let me hear your prefered option on the ML as much as possible 
> and confirm at the call today.
> My preference would be b. in the interests of time, while this 
> would add extra work for Michael and may delay the editorial 
> version to be published. Let's also confirm in terms of the 
> schedule.

I think that all Paul's suggestions have already been 

We can undo any that we disagree about.

>> Consistent use of terms
>> ---------------------------
>> o "IANA Numbering Services Operator" - suggested by PW
>> - Using a consistent term is sensible and this term is fine 
>> with me. I also find it useful to coin one single term for the 
>> number-related services provided by IANA.
>> (However, I suggest refraining from capitalising each word, but 
>> that is of course a matter of style and preference.)
> + 1. Have no opinion about capitalizing.

I prefer capitalising, as Paul has done, and as has been 
integrated into the latest draft.

>> o "The RIRs are not-for-profit membership associations" - suggested by PW
>>   - Again, using a consistent term is sensible.
>>     I think "organisations" is more appropriate but I will leave that
>>     for the RIR staff to decide.
>> ~~~
> + 1 including leaving to RIR staff to decide 
> associations/organisations.

I think that "organization" is a broader term, and thus more 
appropriate.  I don't know whether all RIRs are associations, but 
certainly all are organizations.

How can RIR staff decide this later?  We have to write the 
document now.

>> Possible correction regarding the gPDP
>> --------------------------------------
>> Then there is also the comment on the gPDP:
>> ~~~~
>> "Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR 
>> community must ratify an identical version of the proposed 
>> policy."
>> PW's suggested text:
>> Any individual may submit a global proposal, which must be 
>> agreed by all five RIR communities, in accordance with their 
>> respective policy development processes.
>> PW's comment: "It is incorrect that an identical version must 
>> be approved by all RIRs."
>> ~~~~
>> If this indeed is incorrect, it will need to be corrected. Can 
>> we seek clarification on this?

I am a member of the ASO AC.  Global policy proposals have almost 
always been slightly different in different RIRs.  There have been 
differences in section numbering, punctuation, spelling, and even 
small differences in wording.  One of the steps is for the RIR 
staff to prepare a common version, which is the one sent to ICANN 
and the IANA operator.

> Perhaps someone from RIR could help us confirm the process with 
> your respective policy staff?

Yes, please could RIR staff confirm.

> A.2.
> It is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant 
> parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
> Comment from PW:
> "It is not clear which fact is referred to here."

It should be "these facts", and it refers to the facts from the 
preceding paragraphs.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

More information about the CRISP mailing list