[CRISP-TEAM] Interim version, not yet checked visually in Word...
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Jan 15 07:43:47 CET 2015
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> 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.
Please use the most recent text, suggested by Craig.
>>> 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.
> The other instances all conclude “…accountable to the
> community…” so I’ve harmonized this instance with them,
> rather than to this text, which does not appear elsewhere.
OK, I don't know when that got changed, but it's fine.
>>> 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.
> …with different referents. Not my doing, but it looks
> intentional to me, and it doesn’t seem problematic, so unless
> there’s a consensus that we de-dup, I’ll leave it alone.
>>> 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.
> Okay, changed.
>>> Also, could we say "contract" instead of "agreement" here?
> No, because (although it wasn’t previously 100% uniform, which
> I’ve fixed now) our Service Level Agreement is generally
> referred to in the document as an “agreement,” whereas
> the NTIA IANA Functions Contract is generally referred to
> as a “contract.” Not my idea, but it’s relatively
> uniform already, so I’ve completed the harmonization in that
I thought we said "contract" elsewhere. I believe we had
consensus to use the term "contract", and we told somebody in the
ianaxfer mailing list that we would use the term "contract".
>>> 9. Section VI.I: After the pargraph saying "Prior to
>>> submitting this proposal to the ICG, two drafts were
>>> published", add a list or table of dates, URLS for
>>> announcements, and URLs for draft documents.
> I need someone to generate such a table, which I can insert.
The table might not be needed. Just a reference to the criso team
web page might be enough, since it has links to all published
>>> 10. Section VI.I: Review the entire section to ensure that it
>>> captures the status of recent discussions.
> I need someone operating at a higher altitude to do that; I’ll
> integrate any results.
Izumi had some comments about that.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP