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

Thu Jan 15 07:01:19 CET 2015

Thank you Michael and Bill for this work. I think this is a great
improvement in the readability of the document. I trust all the changes
are editorial in nature and do not change the meaning. I did not spot
such changes.

There are two changes that go beyond simple edits (I include a redline
version with the proposed changes):

1) "Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
domains may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry. " - I
think it belongs in I.D.  A description of any overlaps.

2) Section III.A. In the para, describing the assumption the IANA
Numbering Service Operator and IANA Functions Operator. It should read:

NEW:

This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the numbers
community, the protocol parameters community, and the names community)
will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator
related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are
responsible. At the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to
emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these
communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such
communication and coordination would be especially vital should the
three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of
the IANA Functions Operator going forward. Efforts to facilitate this
communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected
communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process.

Thanks,

Andrei

Bill Woodcock wrote on 15/01/15 03:05:
> …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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP Team Proposal-BW5-AMR.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 151040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150115/1d049669/CRISPTeamProposal-BW5-AMR.doc>