[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions
woody at pch.net
Tue Jan 13 18:25:19 CET 2015
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.
That’s one of the very few changes that originated with me. The mixed style is a bit to wacky for my taste, and I hadn’t seen any discussion around the matter, but if there was in fact consensus in favor of wackiness, I’m happy to go with the majority.
> * Several of the headings or bullet points are quotations from
> the RFP. In such cases, I think we should not edit them.
In general, I agree with that. There were two classes of edits: ones that came from harmonization of edits that people had suggested, and I tried to apply those lightly, or only where they seemed to make more sense; and truncations for length, where a whole paragraph in the RFP had been turned into a section-heading in our response. There’s such a thing as being too literal, and such a thing as over-quoting. I acted in the spirit of concision, fewer line-breaks in headings, and fair-use. I’d rather we not get too dogmatically literal here, since the RFP isn’t a document of section-headings, it’s a document of questions to be addressed.
> * 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’s an instance of a conflict between two editorial principles, and I agree that it needs to be fixed… On the one hand, we were applying edits to make clear that there’s one community; on the other hand, that there are five PDPs plus a gPDP. I believe your approach is the correct one.
> * "AFRINIC" was changed to "AfriNIC" in several places. The
> organi[sz]ation itself now uses the all-caps style "AFRINIC" in
> marketing material.
We need to go one way or the other, uniformly, so if all-caps is now the authoritative one, that’s the correct way to go.
> * 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 NTIA has no oversight role in policy-making related to
> IANA Numbering Services”.
I agree, that’s an improvement. That paragraph generally got clobbered pretty hard by overlapping edits.
> * 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.
Hypothetical, and true in that hypothetical case; does it matter? I don’t have an opinion on this one, I don’t think.
> * 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
Ok… There seemed to be strong consensus in favor of the “in a neutral venue” text, but no consensus on how broadly it should be applied. Your reasoning and conclusion seem fine to me.
> * In section 3.1.3, typo in "consisten with current mechanisms"
> should be "consistent with current mechanisms”.
Good catch. I presume we’ll find a few more of these in the final copyedit pass.
> * 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”.
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.
> * In section 4.1, “We 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
To me that seems like an edit to substance rather than form, but I don’t have an argument with it.
> * In section 5, the first item "Support and enhance the
> multistakeholder model" seems to be missing a bullet.
Ok. Who has the pen right now? Is Michael applying these, or should I, or are you doing so?
> * 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
I tried to do exactly that latter, and would hope for uniformity in that direction. I’d perhaps be a bit happier with the European DD Mmmm YYYY format, which has always seemed more logical to me. I harmonized on the prevailing format, rather than exercising any preference here.
> * 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
Seems a bit pedantic to me as a point of style, but I don’t guess it hurts anything.
What next? I’m available again, for the next eight hours.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the CRISP