[CRISP-TEAM] A few last minute editorial suggestions

[Alan Barrett]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> 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).

I support this change.  I assume that the part about "not-for-profit
membership associations" falls away in favoor of new text in I.B,
along the lines of my earlier proposal.

> 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:
>
> NEW:
>
> 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. [...]

That's fine.

--apb (Alan Barrett)