[NRO-IANAXFER] In support of Draft 2 and some comments [was: What would be helpful when sharing your input]

Wilfried Woeber Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Sun Jan 11 15:23:29 CET 2015

>  * Do you generally support the concept of each of the proposed
>    elements listed in Section III A (1)-(4) (*)
>    (While you may have additional inputs about some details)

Yes, I do.

>  * If you are sharing an opinion which are contrary to discussions
>    which had been taking place on the <ianaxfer at nro.net> list with no
>    further objections expressed or CRISP Team has formed a position,
>    do you feel strong enough to reconsider? If so, what are the
>    implications you are concerned about in case this point was not
>    reconsidered?

To the contrary, I'd like to express my stron support for the approach of
putting the focus on continuity and stability, rather than trying to mend
things that are not broken.

There is one wording suggestion (a) and a couple of editorial observations,
(b) I'd like to share with you, fwiw.

(a) I am wondering whether it would be appropriate to add a statement that
participation in the regional PDP processes is not restricted to parties
being "located" (for any definition of) in a particular region: page 4, under
item II.A.2. towards the middle of 1st paragraph - suggestion:

s/these processes are....background or interest./these processes are....background
or interest or geographic location (of residence or activity)./

(b) Please disregard this stuff if it is too early to deal with such details

- Page 4, item II.A.2 towards the end of 1st paragraph:

"are included under in" - either "under" or "in" should be removed.

- At the start of the next paragraph:

s/may submit a global proposal/may submit a global policy proposal/
(althougjh it should be obvious from the context)

- In the same paragraph:

remove the "("ASO")" to read
"to the Address Supporting Organisation's Address Council ("ASO AC"), which"

- further down in the item list, in (b) there's a spurious line-break

- Page 5 in the middle of the last paragraph:


- Page 7 under II.B.3.i. NTIA, 2nd paragraph:

remove one of the "based" in "member-based based organisations"

- Page 11, bullet list under III.A.3.

there's a spurious line-break in the 2nd bullet

- Page 12 in the header for ii.

s/Description of Serviced/Description of Services/

- Page 19 under heading VI: Community Process

I am not sure about the use of the word "ensuring" in "ensuring feedback".
I am not a native speaker - while "ensuring" seems to make some sense here,
my feeling is that the term "ensuing" would be more appropriate?

- Page 24

s/CRISP)team/ CRISP Team/


So, first of all my big THANK YOU! to all the contributors!

Secondly, I hope you don't see this as excessive nit-picking, just take it
as an indication that I really read the draft from the beginning to the end :-)

Best regards,

PS: as requested on the list a while ago:
    I am submitting this comment as an interested user on the Internet,
    with a background of manager of the at.aconet Local Internet Registry since 1993
    and being on the NRO's NC / ASO's AC since the establishment of this structure.

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list