[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions

[Alan Barrett]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> * 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.

Perhaps we should re-visit the consensus.  I seem to have heard a 
lot of "we agreed to keep the numbering style from the RFP", and 
also a lot of "... but I don't like it".

In my opinion, keeping the numbering style from the RFP is 
somewhat useful, but not essential.  Using a simpler style is much 
easier for writers and for most readers, but may be more difficult 
for the ICG.  If it were my choice, I don't know which way I'd 
go, but if I were an observer instead of a participant, then I'd 
prefer the simple numeric style.

>> * 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 headings, I think it's fine to paraphrase as you have 
done.  In parahraph or bullet lists that appear to be direct 
quotations from the RFP, I think they really should be direct 
quotations.

>> * 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.

I think we should use wording consistent with the ASO MoU, which says
three from each RIR.

>> * 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.
>
> 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.

I think I explained this in more detail in another message.  This 
section is talking about the existing arrangements, and the 
existing ASO MoU says "ICC Rules" and "Bermuda". I think that the 
document should be consistent with the MoU.

The consensus about arbitration in the proposed future contract
is separate from this.

>> * 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
>> reporting”.
>
> To me that seems like an edit to substance rather than form, but 
> I don’t have an argument with it.

Yes, that is an edit to substance.  The phrase "no changes to 
exiting service levels or reporting" somehow crept into our second 
draft without my noticing (it was not in the first draft), and I 
think it's inaccurate, so I would like to fix it now.

>> * 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?

At today's teleconference, we agreed to work from Michael's draft
without your editorial changes, because your document did not have any
redline information, so people found it too difficult to review.

I believe that Michael has the pen.

I think that the next step is for us all to agree on changes to
Michael's draft from yesterday, and for Michael to incorporate them.

I don't how your edits can be re-applied after that.  Most of your
changes are good, and I would not want to lose them.

>> * 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.
>
> 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.

I didn't count, but I thought that DD Mmm YYYY was more prevalent 
(with three-letter abbreviated months).  As I said, I don't object 
to Mmmm DD, YYYY, provided it's used consistently throughout.

>> * 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.
>
> Seems a bit pedantic to me as a point of style, but I don’t 
> guess it hurts anything.

You removed the country from "Santiago, Chile".  I think it's 
important, especially since there are Santiagos in several 
countries.  You also removed the state from "Baltimore, MD", 
and it's probably less important there, but we might as well be 
consistent.

> What next?  I’m available again, for the next eight hours.

I think it would be useful if you could coordinate with Michael 
about getting your changes into a redline document, and 
harmonising it with whatever changes Michael is making.  I'd like 
to end up with two redline documents: one with all the substantive 
and simple editorial changes that have been or are being discussed, 
and another one with all your extensive copy-editing.  I think that 
having two documents will make review easier, because we can agree 
on the substantive changes and simple edits before considering the 
very extensive copy-editing changes.

--apb (Alan Barrett)