[CRISP-TEAM] IV.A "no changes" is inaccurate

[Izumi Okutani]

I agree with your point Alan.

> I propose to say "no significant changes" instead of "no changes" in the
> last paragraph.

As you pointed out we do change the reporting on service level, from
NTIA to RIRs.

Izumi

On 2015/01/14 16:20, Alan Barrett wrote:
> Section IV.A says:
> 
>     The shift from the existing contractual arrangement to another
>     contractual arrangement (perhaps relying on a set of distinct
>     contracts) covering the IANA functions operator���s ongoing
>     management of all the IANA functions should result in no
>     operational change for management of the global Internet
>     number resource pools. This will help minimize any operational
>     or continuity risks associated with stewardship transition.
> 
> and:
> 
>     The necessary agreement proposed for IANA Numbering Services
>     Operator for the IANA Number Registries can be established
>     well before the NTIA target date for transition (September
>     2015), as there are no changes to existing service levels
>     or reporting that are being proposed, only a change in
>     contracting party to align with the delegated policy
>     authority.
> 
> I think that the "no operational change" in the first paragraph quoted 
> above is accurate, but the "no changes" in the second quoted paragraph 
> (the last paragraph of the section) is inaccurate.
> 
> I think that there will be changes to the service level agreement as we 
> move from an SLA with the NTIA, to an SLA with the RIRs; and there will 
> be changes to reporting as we move from reporting to the NTIA, to 
> reporting to the RIRs.
> 
> I propose to say "no significant changes" instead of "no changes" in the 
> last paragraph.
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp