[Internal-cg] Small comments on the proposal v6

[Narelle Clark]

Here is my suggested text in response to Martin's observations on the tone.

For Part II Process Summary 
Para 04

In order to appropriately reflect the existing operational model underpinning IANA, the proposal has been developed by soliciting and then bringing together discrete proposals from the three operational communities. Having the three communities develop their own proposals was considered necessary to protect the integrity of each community's consensus-based submission, given the responsibilities that exist in these communities. The ICG considers it inappropriate to override such consensus and also inefficient for the ICG to merge the three proposals for streamlining purposes and subsequently have the communities re-run their consensus processes. 


But I understand this paragraph has now been deleted.

Narelle


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett
Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2015 2:56 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Small comments on the proposal v6

Here are a few trivial issues that I noticed in the proposal v6:

* In the doument metadata (which you get to via the File -> Properties menu, or something similar), the document title is listed as "CRISP Team Proposal".  It should be the same as the title on the title page, or an abbreviation of that.

* In the diagram in paragraph 2 (Percentage of IANA requests per area in 2014), the percentage for number-related requests is wrong.  5 requests out of 5253ia about 0.1%, not 0.001%.

* On the title page, I suggest adding an author name.  The ICG would be the author.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at ianacg.org
http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org