[CRISP-TEAM] IV.A "no changes" is inaccurate
nurani at netnod.se
Wed Jan 14 08:37:29 CET 2015
On 14 jan 2015, at 08:31, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. I agree with Alan's point.
> 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.
>> 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
>> 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
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP