[CRISP-TEAM] Status update
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Jan 15 20:16:11 CET 2015
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Are any of those issues still outstanding now?
> I wish the answer to that were clearer, but I think it’s
> high time we closed version 8, so I’m going to just be all
> optimistic and say “yes."
I assume you mean "yes, all closed", not "yes, some still outstanding".
>>> - The intellectual property issue is waiting on specific text,
>>> though everybody is expressing goodwill about it.
>> I sent a message with a copy of the agreed text.
> Andrei’s was the last change (as I detailed in a separate
> email). Can you tell me whether you’re okay with Andrei’s
> text, or if you’re proposing separate text that I should go
> looking through your mail for?
The text that I sent was Andrei's text. So what you have done is
>>> - There was text about the RIRs serving the Internet Number
>>> Community that Paul and Nurani objected to but didn’t
>>> suggest an alternative.
>> Nurani sent a copy of the agreed text.
> Yes, well, you all keep asserting agreement, and then sending me
> different things. I’ve cobbled together a compromise between
> your various suggestions, with typo and punctuation correction,
> that’s in there now, that I hope will prove sufficient.
When I say that there was "agreed text", I mean that there was
a discussion in the mailing list, somebody made a proposal, and
others agreed with it.
When changes are made that disturb the agreed text, then different
people may propose to fix it in different ways, but there's still
one agreed text that we can go back to.
>>> - 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.
>> Nurani sent a copy of Paul's text. I replied to your
> Uh… Dammit. I updated it with the text you sent, "Future
> transitions will be smoother if intellectual property assets are
> held by an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services
> Operator.” This was between you and Paul. I’ll assume that
> what’s there is good enough, and that Paul won’t object too
> much if we move forward with it. Rather than trying to figure
> out which of Nurani’s emails has that in it.
I don't mind either way. Over to Paul.
> Okay. Thank you, Izumi, for freeing changes. I’m going to
> take that as an absolute, and close version 8, and produce new
> clean and redlines now, and send them to the list. Expect them
> in a couple of minutes. Then I’ll coordinate with Michael to
> pass the pen and whatever ambiguity remains in the above issues.
> I’m just going to be optimistic again, and say that there are
> NO ADDITIONAL OUTSTANDING ISSUES that are not mentioned in this
> email. I hope you can all live with that.
Thanks you. I agree with that.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP