[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions

[Paul Rendek]

+1

Paul


On 1/13/15 12:36 PM, Michael Abejuela wrote:
> Alan,
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> -Michael
>
>
>
> 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
>> 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".
>>
>> * "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
>> 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".
>>
>> * 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".
>>
>> * 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
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>