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

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Fri Apr 10 10:36:49 CEST 2015

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> 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.

I too am uncomfortable with the term "separability" here.  Is it 
separability of the numbers function from other IANA functions 
(in case different operators are chosen for different functions), 
or is is separability of the IANA numbers function (or all IANA 
functions) from ICANN?

> 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?

Yes, I prefer that wording, without the use of the word "separability".

--apb (Alan Barrett)

More information about the CRISP mailing list