[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Tue Jan 13 22:51:35 CET 2015

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, you know my preference, I’d much rather just have regular numbers.

> 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.

I’m fine with that.

>>> * 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.

Makes sense 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
>>> 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.

Uh, it took me all of about two clicks in Word to produce that redline from the document I sent back, which I sent back not as a redline because you said you couldn’t read the redlines…  was that really sufficient reason to fork from an old version?  It was pretty annoying to spend all day yesterday following the plan we’d agreed to, working everybody’s edits in, get three hours of sleep, and then wake up to find that you guys had changed plans and gone off in a different direction.

> 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.

Yeah, well, that’s the problem with changing plans in mid-stream.  They’re not “my” changes, and I don’t know whether they’re “good” or not, but we’re awfully close to the deadline to be throwing away whole days of work without a rationale or plan.

>>> * 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”.

Actually, I removed “the 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.

Well, that’s not consistent, is it?  I mean, who knows whether there’s a Baltimore in Moldova anyway?  Propose something, and we can follow it, but what was there wasn’t useful.  Insofar as “MD” is a globally recognized geographic abbreviation, it’s the ISO 3166-2 for Moldova, and “the Chile” is Spanglish.

> I think it would be useful if you could coordinate with Michael about getting your changes into a redline document

I sent that when I woke up to Izumi’s request this morning, six hours ago, when I said I would be available for another eight hours.  I haven’t heard anything from Michael in that time.

> ...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.

I think I’m no longer clear on the goal.  Yesterday morning, we had a plan.  What’s the plan now?


-------------- 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/20150113/8b3f237a/signature.asc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list