[CRISP-TEAM] Updated Draft Comment to the CWG Proposal

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Michael,

Thank you for working on the document.

Some suggestions:

> The CRISP Team believes it is essential that each operational community be free to make its own independent arrangement with an IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and that there be no artificial constraint requiring the communities to select the same IFO. 

I think the emphasis should be on the free choice, not on the constraint
of selecting the same operator. So I'd like to suggest once again:

The CRISP Team believes it is essential that each operational community
be free to make its own independent arrangement with an IANA Functions
Operator (IFO) including the ability to choose the operator itself.

> We currently understand that a choice is given to the Numbers community on whether to enter into an SLA with ICANN (which would delegate operation of the IANA Functions to PTI), or directly with PTI as the IFO. 

I do not quite like the "choice is given", so:

In our understanding and following the proposed model the Numbers
community can either enter into an SLA with ICANN (which would delegate
operation of the IANA Functions to PTI), or directly with PTI as the IFO.

> In this light, we would like to propose that a PTI Board be established, but with no additional substantial roles. With the goals of simplicity and minimizing impact on the Numbers proposal, we suggest that the PTI Board have an absolute minimal role, scope and mandate. The Numbers proposal does not contemplate any model which potentially expands the role of the Board beyond the absolute minimum for organizational framework or requires participation by representatives from the three operational communities to serve on the Board.

I think we are saying the same thing three times.

I suggest that we leave only:

The Numbers proposal does not contemplate any model which potentially
expands the role of the Board beyond the absolute minimum for
organizational framework or requires participation by representatives
from the three operational communities to serve on the Board.

The rest of the document reads very well.

Thank you,

Andrei

Michael Abejuela wrote on 18/05/15 18:36:
> Hello CRISP Team,
> 
> As discussed during the CRISP call earlier today, I have compiled the
> comments received on the draft document in an attempt to harmonize for
> finalization and sending to the CWG-Stewardship.  You will observe two
> documents attached.  I took the last redline with comments prior to our
> call today and accepted all changes.  I then created a redline against
> that document to show any additional changes I made/suggested which is
> the redline document attached.  I also created a clean version of the
> redline document for ease of your reading and review.
> 
> Please provide any questions, comments, concerns or desired edits at
> your earliest convenience and no later than 1800 UTC so that I can work
> with Izumi and Nurani to finalize and have it sent by 1900 UTC to the
> CWG-Stewardship.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Michael
> 
> -- 
> 
> Michael R. Abejuela
> 
> Associate General Counsel
> 
> ARIN
> 
> 3635 Concorde Parkway
> 
> Suite 200
> 
> Chantilly, VA 20151
> 
> (703) 227-9875 (p)
> 
> (703) 263-0111 (f)
> 
> mabejuela at arin.net <mailto:mabejuela at arin.net>
> 
>  
> 
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, copy,
> use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.   If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>