[CRISP-TEAM] Interim version, not yet checked visually in Word...
Izumi Okutani
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 15 05:29:37 CET 2015
Bill and Michael,
Many thanks for your efforts in compiling the document together.
Overall, it looks great.
Bill, I especially like the work you did for the IANA contract
principles, to make that part distinct from the overview of III.A.3. I
was intending to raise it, if it was not addressed.
See my commments below.
Nothing too substantive, except I didn't see a part of Andrei's proposal
reflected.
Alan I trust you check your part yourself so I haven't done it for your
part at this stage (I wasn't sure how your comment about moving
description about RIR, NRO, NRO EC to be moved in Section I is reflected
by leave it to you).
I haven't checked the links yet.
1.B.
Probably a matter of preference but I like to the beggining of the words
in each line to be aligned rather than end of the words to be aligned.
Then again, i'm also fine with the current format, which I assume there
is a reason for it.
AFRINIC Serving Africa
APNIC Serving the Asia-Pacific Region
ARIN Serving Canada, some North Atlantic and Caribbean islands,
Antarctica, and the United States
LACNIC Serving Latin America and portions of the Caribbean
RIPE NCC Serving Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East
1.C.
Double check if the sentence below is meant to be in 1.C.
(My understanding is, this was deleted by PW and was suggested to move
to 1.D.)
"Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
domains may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry."
If I recall correctly, Andrei's suggestion was to move this to the last
sentence of the second last paragraph.
However it makese more sense to me to move this to the first sentence of
the same paragraph as below:
Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
domains may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry.The global
Internet community also depends upon the IANA Numbering Services
Operator foradministration of the special-purpose IN-ADDR.ARPA and
IP6.ARPA DNS zones [...]
II.A.2
There was a question whether prooposals need to be identical .
I thought it was agreed to remove "an identical version of" and say:
---
OLD:
The community must ratify an identical version of the proposed policy
within each RIR.
NEW:
The community must ratify an the proposed policy within each RIR.
---
[Alan, Paul, anyone who cares about this part]
Is this a fair understanding?
To Michael: please do not delete until confirmation from two of them.
II.A.3.
Would "each of the five RIR community" fit better here than "the
Internet Number Community"?
[Alan]
Please confirm what you think, as an NRO NC.
---
It is the responsibility of the NRO Number Council (“NRO NC”), a group
comprising fifteen community members selected by the Internet Number
Community, to confirm that the documented RIR PDPs have been followed in
the development of policy.
---
II.B.3.i
It seem's Andrei's suggested text is not reflected.
The idea is to replace with the paragraph below.
---
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).
---
III.A.3.
Andrei's suggestion below is not reflected.
---
(First paragraph to move from III.A.1)
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. [...]
---
Numbers are taken aware from each proposal elements.My preference is to
keep the numbers in III.A. like (1)-(4), so it is clear which element
proposal corresponds to in later section.
If this wasn't obvious to a new reader anyways/no concern from others,
I'm OK with the current format of listing proposal elements without numbers.
III.A.4.
Last para: it seems to be full stop, instead of conma
---
OLD:
bottom-up. and inclusive manner
NEW:
bottom-up, and inclusive manner
----
IV.A.
"Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed"
I think this is listed as a quesion we answer, so should be treated as
tillle, not a parat of the answer
Thanks,
Izumi
On 2015/01/15 11:05, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ���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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
More information about the CRISP
mailing list