[CRISP-TEAM] Interim version, not yet checked visually in Word...

Thu Jan 15 03:05:26 CET 2015

…not including a few still-outstanding edits, and I haven’t produced a redline yet, but wanted to get this out before I went to a meeting.  Back in three hours.

Please give this a once-over from the top, using the clean PDF, and let me know if you see formatting, punctuation, grammar, or harmonization problems.

Also, please let me know if you have still-outstanding changes, other than those I’m reproducing below.

Thanks,

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP Team Proposal-BW5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 265234 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150114/6fcfb2eb/CRISPTeamProposal-BW5.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP Team Proposal-BW5.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 217088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150114/6fcfb2eb/CRISPTeamProposal-BW5.doc>
-------------- next part --------------

---
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.
—

________________________

X.III.3.ix.  Intellectual Property Rights and Rights Over Data

Principle:

The Internet number community must have free unlimited access to all
intellectual property rights which are necessary for, or which relate
to, the continuing provision of the IANA services. Such rights must also
be available freely, without restriction, to any successor operator of
the IANA Numbering services.

The details and expectations of the RIR community on this issue are set
out in III.A.2.

________________________

I like the general idea of having III.A.3.ix defer to III.A.2 for details about which types of intellectual property should be assigned to which rights holders, so there is no inconsistency between the sections.

________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150114/6fcfb2eb/signature.asc>