[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions
apb at cequrux.com
Tue Jan 13 13:51:51 CET 2015
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>> * 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.
> I thought our conclusion was to not include any details about
> venue (neutral or not).
We decided not to say anything about the venue for the proposed
new contract, but that's not in this section. This section
is talking about existing arrangements, and the exisiting ASO
MoU. Here, I think we should accurately describe the existing
>> * 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 am unclear about what is suggested here.
The text says that there will be no change at all to service
levels or reporting. I don't think that's accurate. I think
there may be small changes to service level agreements as a result
of contract negotiations. I am almost certain that there will be
changes to reporting, even if it's only a change from "report to
the NTIA" to "report to the RIRs".
>> * In section 5, the first item "Support and enhance the
>> multistakeholder model" seems to be missing a bullet.
> ? I can't see what you are referring too.
The round dot (bullet) is missing from that line. Or at least, it
looks like that on my screen.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP