[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback] CRISP Team Statement: Our role and the next steps

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Thank you very much, Izumi, for your response.

Izumi Okutani wrote on 10/04/15 07:31:
[...]

>        Therefore, in case there are any concerns for implementation to
> be consistent with the numbers community proposal, including reflecting
> the seperability of the IANA Numbering Services operator, it should be
> communicated to the
>        community's attention in a transparent manner.

I suggest a slight modification:

"Therefore, in case there are any concerns regarding consistency of the
implementation with the numbers community proposal, ..."

I have a little discomfort with the "separability" term, although I
understand it has become part of the IANA lingua franca. Cannot we
simply say (for instance in your first point):

- The ability to choose an operator for the IANA numbering services is
seen as one of the most important elements in ensuring the
accountability of the IANA numbering function operator.

and continue using this throughout our communication?

This will mitigate a possible perception that we definitely want to
separate these services from ICANN, which is not the case, I believe.

Regards,

Andrei