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

Alan Barrett 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 
> direction.

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 mailing list