[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP TEAM - Proposal Draft 13012015 Call

[Alan Barrett]

Thank you, Andrei, for your suggested changes based on Paul 
Wilson's changes.  I agree with most of your suggestions.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> - In I.D restored the statement that the IANA Number Registries 
> are generally accessed via references based on the IANA.ORG 
> domain name.

I agree.

> - In I.D reinstated that the administration of the 
> special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS zones 
> may also require interaction with the .ARPA zone registry. This 
> was deleted from the I.C, but I think the description of 
> dependencies is a better place for this.

Moving it to I.D is fine.  I was also OK with deleting it as Paul Wilson
did, but it's probaly better to reinstate it in I.D as you have done.

> - For consistency with the RFP and to avoid confusion with the 
> IANA Numbering Services Operator, when it refers to all three 
> functions, I changed the "IANA operator" to "IANA functions 
> operator".

OK, so "IANA functions operator" as a general term, and "IANA 
Numbering Services Operator" as a more specific term.

In III.A point (1), you have

        (1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator for the
        IANA Numbering Services, further referred as “IANA Numbering
        Services Operator”;

I'd rephrase this as:

        (1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator for the
        IANA Numbering Services, further referred to as the “IANA
        Numbering Services Operator”;

(add "to" and "the").  I might also write "hereinafter referred 
to" instead of "further referred to".

> - In III.A I suggested changes to avoid the above confusion 
> when we talk about the assumption that specific IANA customers 
> (i.e. the numbers community, the protocol parameters community 
> and the names community) will have independent arrangements with 
> the IANA functions operator. I note that this paragraph was 
> originally in the III.A.3, but I agree thie preamble is a better 
> place, since this assumption also applied to other elements 
> (e.g. IPR).

Thanks for noticing what seems to be overzealous use of 
search/replace by Paul.  Your version makes much more sense.

--apb (Alan Barrett)