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

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> Done.
> 
> Please use the most recent text, suggested by Craig.

Craig, please let me know if the text I pulled from your email was not the most recent.

>>>> 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”.

We said “contract,” we said “agreement,” we said half a dozen other things.  The question is whether to harmonize on “contract” for the IANA Functions Contract and _separately_ to harmonize on “agreement” for the Service Level Agreement, or whether to call them both “contracts.”  You guys come to a consensus on that, and Michael or I will implement.

>>>> 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 versions.
> 
>>>> 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.

Okay, well, in any event, if someone produces them, Michael or I can plug them in.

I’ll retain the pen until I hear from Michael that he’s ready to take it.

                                -Bill




-------------- 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/20150114/39a44987/signature.asc>