Elwyn:
Two points:
Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the
Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its
goals, and what is in scope and out of scope of the document. Then
transitions to talking about the goals of the Internet registry system.
I think the goals of the Internet registry system should be a separate
section from the Introduction. And, the Introduction should be expanded
to better describe the purpose of the document.
I agree fully with this comment. The first para of s1 needs a rewrite
and a little expansion to match up with the abstract to form a proper
intro. The goals do belong in a separate section
Okay. I'll tackle that for the next version.
Also regarding the first para of s4:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
mechanisms by which the structures, policies, and processes of the
Internet Numbers Registry System itself can evolve to meet the
changing demands of the global Internet community. Further evolution
of the Internet Numbers Registry System is expected to occur in an
open, transparent, and broad multi-stakeholder manner.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who are these stakeholders? Is this (just) the organisations named in
the document (I think that would be ICANN/IANA, IETF, *IRs - a large
number!) or is the community to be consulted? and governments? So do we
have a view as to how all these people are to be informed that some
evolution is needed?
How would you describe the bottoms-up policy development process used by the
RIRs? And, when all of them agree, the adoption of a global policy.
Russ