[CRISP-TEAM] A few last minute editorial suggestions

[Paul Rendek]

Well done Andrei. I support both of these changes.

Paul


On 1/14/15 11:24 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>