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

Nurani Nimpuno nurani at netnod.se
Fri Apr 10 15:08:35 CEST 2015

> On 10 apr 2015, at 09:51, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> 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.

I agree. I've held back responding, simply because I didn't have better wording to propose, but I agree with Andrei's general point(s). 

(Both on the term "separability", and the general point about being clear on what feedback we are seeking from the community.)

> 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.

I'm happy with this wording. Thanks Andrei!

> Regards,
> Andrei
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list