[CRISP-TEAM] Comments closeing UTC6:00 Re: Interim version, not yet checked visually in Word...

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 15 05:51:58 CET 2015


CRISP Team,

A friendly reminder we will be closing comments at UTC6:00, which is
roughly 1 hour from now.

Izumi


On 2015/01/15 11:16, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Thank you very much Bill for the draft Bill.
> 
> 
> CRISP Team,
> 
> 
> Please share your comment to this draft before UTC6:00 15th Jan, so
> Michael can incorporate.
> 
> 
> 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