[CRISP-TEAM] Status update

[Izumi Okutani]

On 2015/01/16 3:04, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> I���ve now completed all edits that I know of, that are applicable to version 7 of the document, and didn���t have outstanding issues.
>
> I���ve mailed the list about each of the outstanding issues, namely:
>
>   - The glossary is long, probably too long to go at the top of the document, and contains as-yet undefined items.

I think this is agreed.
>
>   - The rampant variations of open/transparent/bottoms-up need to be harmonized.

I saw a comment in favour but not a high priority.


>
>   - Whether or not to include the reference to Bermuda is (I think) waiting on a reply from Andrei.

Andrei replied,


>   - The intellectual property issue is waiting on specific text, though everybody is expressing goodwill about it.

Andrei replied,

>   - There was text about the RIRs serving the Internet Number Community that Paul and Nurani objected to but didn���t suggest an alternative.


III.A.3.	Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator
last paragraph:

CURRENT:
It is expected that the RIRs, as signatories to this agreement, will 
draft the specific language of the agreement under the guidance of the 
Internet Number Community which they serve. The drafting process will be 
guided by the principles listed below. References to relevant sections 
of the current NTIA contract are also noted, as it is expected the new 
agreement will share many of the same contractual goals and mechanisms.

NEW: (it is acutally not new, reflected in Michael's text)
It is expected that RIR staff, as the contractual party of this 
agreement, will draft the specific language of this agreement. During 
the drafting process, the RIRs are expected to consult their respective 
RIR communities.  and that tThe drafting process will be guided by the 
principles listed below. References to relevant sections of the current 
NTIA agreement are also noted, as it is expected the new agreement will 
share many of the same contractual goals and mechanisms.


>   - There was a sentence about a third-party holder of IP that Paul wanted simplified, I proposed an alternative, haven���t heard back from anyone. Haven���t checked to see if it clobbers the other IP issue or vice-versa yet.

Could you share the exact text? If you mean the feedback Paul gave to 
version 5, serveral people expressed support.

>   - We���re waiting for Dr. Govind���s given name, if he has one.

I had been confirming with him (should have confirmed at the call) but 
perhaps too busy to respond. Not a must.

>   - Alan suggested text ���elect individuals to the governing board��� but didn���t specify where it should go.

Alan, can you confirm?


> Up to the point at which I left the call, the consensus was to close all outstanding issues before moving to version 8, so we could call for consensus on version 8.  I���m not getting a lot of feedback from you guys on the above.  There are several ways forward:
>
> 1) I can noodle around with the glossary until I see some consensus on the list.
> 2) We can just throw out all outstanding issues, declare it done, consensus reached, and move on to pagination.
> 3) I can wing it on the easy ones, throw out the hard ones, and freeze version 8.
> 4) You guys could get to work and close these issues, so I can apply them and freeze version 8.
> 5) We can change our minds about open issues from 7 passing on to 8, and I can punt all of the open issues on to Michael.
> 6) I could try to wing it on all of the open issues.
>
> (6) will take too long, and we���ll miss the deadline.  (5) is punting, and doesn���t move us ahead.  (4) is wishful thinking.  (3) is probably the sensible course of action.  (2) is too sensible to contemplate.  (1) is just shy of wasting time, but is what I���ll do for a few minutes while I wait to see if anyone gives me any feedback on this.
>
> I���d kinda prefer (3) myself.  Lets us do the pen-handoff and move forward.  I got my parents to deal with the kids this morning, and canceled my morning meeting, but I won���t be able to cancel my meeting that���s at 20:00 UTC, so we���ll need to have handed off the pen by then.

(3) is fine and thank you very much to have covered all this in a short 
time Bill.


But please make sure to reflect Paul and Nurani's comment about last 
paragraph of III.A.3, as this reflects consensus of the CRISP Team.


Izumi