[CRISP-TEAM] Summary of outstanding issues for 14th CRISP Call

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


This is the summary of comments which still needs to be
incorporated/issues to be discussed at the 14th call.

I would like to cover 6 points listed and anything else Bill, Michael or
other CRISP members wish to raise.

One issue I would like to ask for volunteer is improvement in text for
III.A.2, based on Paul's comment (too complex & not understandaable).

Bill, correct me if I misunderstand any of the status.

This is inteded as the discussions materila for today's call.


Izumi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments have been incorporated in Bill's version 7 except
  -  Paul's comments "CRISP Team Proposal-BW5- paul edit.doc"
  -  Andrei's text suggestion
     "Possible inconsinstency pointed out on IRP for Section III A2 and
      IIIA3"
  -  Alan's comments (CRISP Team Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-3.doc)
  - Definitions to be added

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be confirmed at 14th call:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  Use of word should/can

 IV.A.   Description of operational requirements
    a new agreement can --> should be established

  Clarification about the use of wording: (Alan)
  - should" be done before the transition (it is a good idea),
  - that it "can" be done (it is possible)

  -->   If no objection at the 14th call, adopt

2. Descripion of arbitration for global PDP
  I.A.3	How disputes about policy are resolved
   - avoid the word neutral and adop Paul's text

  -->   If no objection at the 14th call, adopt

3.  III.A  Revise wording "the IANA Numbering Services Operator"

Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the
three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of
the IANA Numbering Services Operator going forward .

PR comment:
Isn’t this more than just the Numbering Services part of IANA. Perhps we
need to be more generic here as its related to all 3 communities.
Perhaps the identity of IANA. Or lisitng it as an entity that will
maintain their specific registires of interest.

Possible options:
 - the IANA Function
 - the IANA Function Operator
 - Any other?


4. Text Revision for III.A.2?
Too complex --> Alternative suggeston?

CURRENT:
With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the
expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated
with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA
Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization not associated
with an IANA Numbering Services Operator to hold these assets in
perpetuity will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator
(or operators) be selected in the future . It is the preference of the
Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG
domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA
Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are
used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire
community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF
Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.

5. Need update in VI?

  Current suggested
  -  "IANA Draft Proposal 14012015 - MRA"
     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-January/000990.html

  -->   Do we need more description?

6. Definitions
Paul has volunteered to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------