[CRISP-TEAM] A few last minute editorial suggestions
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Jan 14 12:12:20 CET 2015
Andrei, both of yous suggestions makes sense to me.
Let's confirm at the call today whether others agree.
On 2015/01/14 18:35, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Apologies for bringing this up late in the game, but there seems to be
> one inaccurate statement and one purely editorial suggestion.
>> II.B.3.i. NTIA
>> While the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public in nature, the Internet number resource community is primarily represented in oversight of the IANA functions operator's performance by the RIRs, which are not-for-profit membership associations with elected governance Boards. Currently, the NTIA does not have an oversight role in this regard.
> I am not sure that is correct. The NTIA exercises the oversight role
> through the IANA fiunctions contract and that is the change we are
> proposing. At the same time I am equally not sure that currently the
> RIRs have any oversight role in this regard.
> NEW (along with the next para):
> While the IANA functions operator escalation and reporting mechanisms
> are public in nature, the NTIA has an oversight role in the provision of
> the services through the contract with ICANN. The ultimate consequence
> of failing to meet the performance standards or reporting requirements
> is understood to be a decision by the contracting party (the NTIA) to
> terminate or not renew the IANA functions agreement with the current
> contractor (ICANN).
> My second, more editorial point is that in section III.A.1. ICANN to
> continue as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, the following
> paragraph seems out of place:
>> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system.
> I think this is more appropriate for section III.A.3. Service Level
> Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator, and I suggest that
> we move it there:
> III.A.3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator
> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
> functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
> functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the
> continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN.
> However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the
> current system.
> The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be
> established between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five
> RIRs. The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA
> agreement with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces
> the IANA functions operator's accountability to the open, bottom-up
> numbers community. [...]
> Hope this is not a distraction
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP