> On 2 Oct 2017, at 15:29, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a quick comment on the wording. The notes say: > >> - The new 6(d)(vii) says that a transfer is a kind of allocation or >> assignment. Because of this, other parts of the RSA that refer to >> allocations or assignments will automatically cover transfers as well. > > That seems fine. However section 1(c)(i) says: > >> - “Services” may include, without limitation, an allocation/assignment or >> transfer of number resources. > > Depending on how someone wants to read it, that might be interpreted in a way > that sets a precedent that says that transfers are not included in > "allocation/assignment" by default and need to be mentioned explicitly. > > I know, I'm picking nits here, but for consistency and to avoid > misinterpretations I think it would be better to either not mention "or > transfers" here, or to explicitly include them in other places as well.
Thanks. I think we may be able to move the idea that a transfer is a kind of allocation or assignment to the definitions in 1(c), instead of a separate clause in 6(d)(viii). Alan Barrett
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
