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