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

[Alan Barrett]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>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).

I don't remember that comment.  Please could you remind me.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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

I just sent a new set of comments (CRISP Team Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-4.doc).

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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

The current draft says "can and should be established".  I support that.

>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

I think you mean II.A.3.

The word "neutral" is not in section II.A.3 in the BW7 draft.  What is
Paul's text?

>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?

PR's comment was in response to a change that Bill made in the BW5
draft.  The BW7 draft now says:

    This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the
    numbers community, the protocol parameters community, and the
    names community) will have independent arrangements with the
    IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific
    registries for which they are responsible

and I think we agreed on that in the mailing list.

>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.

The idea is simple enough.  We want to transfer the trademark and domain
name to the IETF Trust or another neutral body.  We are using a lot of
words to say that, and I am sure it could be simplified.  Can andrei
help?

>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.

We need to agree on where definitions will go.  I suggested a new
section between "Abstract" and "0. Proposal type".

I think we should also dicuss the cover letter.

--apb (Alan Barrett)