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

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Thu Jan 15 07:24:22 CET 2015

> 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

I’m trying to make very clear that the association is a horizontal one, without using too much vertical space; this is a mechanism for doing that.  I recognize that it’s not a terribly common usage.

> 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.)


> 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.

I recall that being the consensus as well and I remember seeing compelling supporting arguments.  I’ve made the change, we can roll it back if it’s controversial.

> II.A.3.
> Would "each of the five RIR community" fit better here than  "the Internet Number Community”?

I like it the way it is, for reasons which I can enumerate if it seems worthwhile.  Other folks opinions?

> 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).

That’s there.  “While” is incorrect usage, so the paragraph now begins with “Although” which may be why you didn’t spot it.  If the prior paragraph

ICANN, as the current IANA Numbering Services Operator, is obligated by the NTIA agreement to carry out management of the Number Registries according to policies developed by the Internet Number Community.

is supposed to be _removed_ as well, please let me know.

> 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. […]

I think this is referencing something that has already been moved.  In any event, I don’t see anything like this near III.A.1 or III.A.3 anymore.

> 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.

They’re numbered, just not in the context of the wacky-numbering system, because they’re not subheads of this document, they’re points being made in a wholly included document.  They’re more like a numbered list.  Not titles of sections of _this_ document.

Also, imagine what the TOC would look like if we did that.

> III.A.4.
> Last para: it seems to be full stop, instead of conma

Good catch, thanks.

> 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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150114/1389d0ad/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20150114/1389d0ad/signature.asc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list