Duncan Rogerson <D.Rogerson@nosc.ja.net> writes: My first reaction is that I don't really like this too much I'm afraid.

I think splitting the field and the explanation for a field is a bad idea. I know the idea was to have a pan-European form, and then have the information required to fill it in in the local language as a separate part, but looking at it, I think this is just going to be confusing to people and generate more work dealing with enquiries over the phone.

Duncan, Many thanks for your prompt reaction to the draft template. I do think however that this format still has validity. These are my reasons why: a) Sometimes the IP applications are passed between NICs in different countries as it is not always entirely clear who should handle the application - therefore the argument for keeping a separate and uncluttered looking form - in English (increasing its transparency) - is quite a strong one. The local language version is something to be composed by the local NICs which explains how to fill in the form. This was agreed at the ir-registry BOF in Paris wasnt it? b) Also the idea behind this bare bones template + explanations on how to fill in the template is to avoid users thinking they know how to fill in the form without looking at *any* additional documentation (which will of course take up more of their time and might be considered a drag..) This form is actually designed so as to be difficult to fill in *without* reading the documentation - quite carefully - first.

I think it's better to merge the information about each field with the question itself. The information can still be translated to the local language, and we can still make available the more verbose documentation. For example :

Part A

The information supplied for this section ... etc etc

1. Please give the suggested name of the network, a short description of the organisation and location, the ISO 3166 code for the country in which the network is located, the administrative and technical contact names for the network, and the author and date of completion of the template.

netname: descr: . . source: RIPE

This I think is confusing (ok so it's only a matter of personal taste) BUT I do think you run the risk of getting information back to you in a format that will require quite a bit of massaging.. and is possibly incomplete.

This would also mean we could send out less paperwork (save the trees! save the fax machines!) initially. We can add a sentence at the top

You have a point about the amount of paper used - I will look at deleting some of the blank lines..

of the form asking that if the recipient needs more information on completing the form, documents x y and z are available from the local registry. We can then send them the more detailed information about each field.

I think you also run the risk of receiving many more telephone calls as people have odd one off queries. The supporting documentation attempts to stem these queries from the start and aims at getting quality information. Also I believe that people are quite lazy, often in a rush etc. and you will get people trying to fill in the form without getting the additional documentation or bothering to make that extra telephone call. Actually this is probably more likely than receiving hundreds of phone calls. The template is built around the idea of the RIPE database wich includes explanations on how to fill in each field and this seems to be understood ok. I have also tried this form out on a couple of "users" (ok not a huge sample size :-) ) they made some useful comments but found it ok to use.

Part C is a nice feature, we've had quite a few applications on behalf of other organisations. It might be nice to have a question asking where notification of the allocation should go - to the end organisation or the intermediary, this seems to vary for some reason.

Part D is good - is it worth stating on the form that class B addresses are only allocated in very exceptional circumstances ? I've started adding this to forms I send out direct, and I think it's helping to make peoplet think more carefully about their networks.

Dunc

This is a good idea. The supporting documentation (under draft by Bob Day) ought also to include information about the (lack of) address space etc..etc.. Regards, Anne.