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

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Thu Jan 15 07:55:44 CET 2015

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:53 PM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>>> IV.A.   Description of operational requirements ...
>>> A new agreement specifying IANA operation of the Internet Number Registries can be established well before the September 2015 transition target, as we propose to simply reconcile the contracting party with the policy authority, without changing service levels or reporting.
>> I believe that it should say that a new agreement "should" be established before the transition target. I realize this has implications, but I thought we had agreed on including language to the effect that this agreement should be in place before the transition. But we can discuss this.
> There are two related concepts here.  We think that it "should" be done before the transition (it is a good idea), and we think that it "can" be done (it is possible).
> I don't have a preference for wording, but it would be nice if both concepts could be conveyed.

“…can and should…”  I’ll make the change now.


-------------- 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/20150114/360ab5b0/signature.asc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list