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

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Tue Jan 13 19:02:48 CET 2015

>>> 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.

In general, I don’t like capitalizing in the sense of coining new proper nouns, as lawyers are often wont to do.  But in this instance, I think it makes sense to identify keywords, flag them by capitalizing, define them up-front, and use them uniformly throughout.  It looks a bit lawyerly, but I think it promotes clarity.

> 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.

Also agreed.

>>> 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.

We should be accurate, or we should be concise.  One option is to correct the text that’s there, the other is to elide it.  It sounds like it can’t be left to stand as-is.

My vote is to elide.  We don’t need to explain the whole world in this document, and it’s overlong already.

>> 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.

Well, if it’s unclear to someone, it may be unclear to others, and if they’re in a different paragraph, saying so may help.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150113/584ba5fc/signature.asc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list