[CRISP-TEAM] section VI.I Re: IANA Draft Proposal 14012015 - MRA
Izumi Okutani
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 15 02:33:13 CET 2015
To follow up on Alan's point;
> > Finally, I think we still need to update section VI.I to ensure
that it
> > captures all recent discussions. See items 9 and 10 in this email
> message:
> >
and my observatio below:
> Indeed. I looked at this myself before the call yesterday for the same
> reason. My personaly impression was it still doesn't seem to change this
> general description that there was consensus on the proposed elements,
> with discussions on details.
>
> It may perpaps worth considering to list the issues which had some
> discussions such as dispute resolution, details of SLA, while I didn't
> observe disagreement at the end, from my perspective.
I actually don't see a strong need to revise this exising text, but it
may be good to be covering all points including details disagreement per
proposed element.
To reflect discussions for the second draft, it is possible to add
disputed resolution, and the need of SLA text to be submitted as quoted.
"Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
conditions, *dispute resolution and the need of SLA text to be
submitted*"
* Mark is added
I don't want to add anything unless there is no objection, so I suggest
not to incorporate in Bill's draft. If no concerns expressed until
UTC6:00 (same as comment period for the draft proposal from Bill), then
we reflect in Michael's version, which follows Bill's.
Izumi
---
OLD:
In the global discussions at <ianaxfer at nro.net>, several issues received
close attention andprovoked significant discussion. These issues included:
• Composition of Review Committee
• Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
conditions
• Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks
associated with the IANA function
Comments mainly focused on clarification of details of these issues.
Support was expressed by several people on the ianaxfer at nro.net mailing
list on the final, agreed elements of the proposal listed in Section III.
There was clear agreement from the global community on positions
regarding each of these issues, as reflected in the content of the
current proposal. The CRISP team believes therefore that the current
proposal fully reflects the consensus of the global numbering community.
NEW:
In the global discussions at <ianaxfer at nro.net>, several issues received
close attention andprovoked significant discussion. These issues included:
• Composition of Review Committee
• Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
conditions,dispute resolution and the need of SLA text to be
submitted
• Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks
associated with the IANA function
Comments mainly focused on clarification of details of these issues.
Support was expressed by several people on the ianaxfer at nro.net mailing
list on the final, agreed elements of the proposal listed in Section III.
There was clear agreement from the global community on positions
regarding each of these issues, as reflected in the content of the
current proposal. The CRISP team believes therefore that the current
proposal fully reflects the consensus of the global numbering community.
---
On 2015/01/15 8:48, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Thank you Alan,
>
> I'm sorry that your suggested changes which reached consensus was not
> captured. Must have been due to my notes to Michael which was missing in
> those parts.
>
> I do strongly recommend other CRISP Team to do the same, as I did my
> best to cover based on what I could catch up but it is likely I have not
> captured them all, especially when there was not a lot of discussions.
>
> > Finally, I think we still need to update section VI.I to ensure that it
> > captures all recent discussions. See items 9 and 10 in this email
> message:
> >
>
> Indeed. I looked at this myself before the call yesterday for the same
> reason. My personaly impression was it still doesn't seem to change this
> general description that there was consensus on the proposed elements,
> with discussions on details.
>
> It may perpaps worth considering to list the issues which had some
> discussions such as dispute resolution, details of SLA, while I didn't
> observe disagreement at the end, from my perspective.
>
> Izumi
>
> On 2015/01/15 8:23, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Michael Abejuela wrote:
>>> My apologies, I anticipated getting this out an hour earlier. Please
>>> find attached a redline and clean version of the updates to the draft
>>> proposal. In this draft you will observe the changes identified in
>>> Izumi���������s e-mail ���������Compilation of Sugested texts
>>> ��������� issues discussed
>>> at the 11th call��������� and Izumi���������s e-mail earlier today
>>> ���������To Michael:
>>> Suggested changes to be reflected���������
>>
>> Thank you. I have a few comments:
>>
>> Section I.B: "The RIRs, not-for-profit membership-based
>> organizations, manage ...". This is missing the "with elected governing
>> boards" that was present in another section. This section is also
>> missing the definitions of "NRO" and "NRO EC" that I suggested should be
>> moved to this section, and that I thought received agreement. See the
>> email thread "Move description of RIRs, NRO, and NRO EC to section I.A"
>> in which I provided a redline file draft-apb-NROEC-RIR.20150113.1.docx
>> with suggested edits.
>>
>> Section III.A.2: The sentence "It is the preference of the RIR community
>> that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the
>> transition" appears twice, buth in a paragraph near the middle, and in a
>> sentence at the end of the last paragraph.
>>
>> Section III.A.3: "It is expected that RIR staff, as the contractual
>> party of this agreement, will draft the specific language of this
>> agreement." I thought we agreed that "the RIRs", not "RIR staff", would
>> draft the contract. Also, could we say "contract" instead of
>> "agreement" here?
>>
>> * Section III.A.4: I think we agreed that "The RIRs shall establish a
>> Review Committee".
>>
>>
>> I also found several changes that I proposed, that received consensus,
>> but that have not been integrated. I did not look for similar cases on
>> behalf of others.
>>
>> * Email thread "Document status inside the document", my redline file
>> draft-apb-STATUS.20150113.1.redline.docx from the email message
>> with these headers:
>>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:36:28 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Document status inside the document
>>
>> * Email thread "Change NRO EC to RIRs", my suggestions in the message
>> with these email headers,
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:25:27 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Change NRO EC to RIRs
>>
>> as modified by Paul Rendek's commens in this email message:
>>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:54:39 +0000
>> From: Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Change NRO EC to RIRs
>>
>> * Emaill thread "Move description of RIRs, NRO, and NRO EC to section
>> I.A",
>> my redline file draft-apb-NROEC-RIR.20150113.1.docx from this email
>> message:
>>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:04:15 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Move description of RIRs, NRO, and NRO EC to
>> section I.A
>>
>> modified by changing "associations" to "organizations".
>>
>>
>> Finally, I think we still need to update section VI.I to ensure that it
>> captures all recent discussions. See items 9 and 10 in this email
>> message:
>>
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:26:00 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions
>>
>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
More information about the CRISP
mailing list