[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback requested] Discussions on delaying CCWG Timelines
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Dec 18 09:58:28 CET 2015
Good suggestion Andrei.
We can share the intended response to the ianaxfer list before sending it to the CCWG.
I understand your point Andrei, we should be careful, especially when speaking on behalf of the numbers community, which is not directly about the proposal itself.
I agree, let's share with the wider numbers community before we make any statement to the CCWG.
It is very much in line with what we have been doing throughout the process.
Thank you Mwendwa for your feedback to support making our voice on this.
What you expressed is along the lines of my thinking, and I think Andrei's suggestion doesn't contradict.
Nurani has also expressed support to make a comment.
She is now out of office therefore sent me a quick feedback individually.
I'll wait to see if there are any other comments until UTC14:30, 24 hours from my request for feedback.
If no concerns are expressed I will share it on the ianaxfer list.
Feedback continues to be welcome, including further clarifications, or even just an explicit support.
On 2015/12/18 17:31, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Thank you Izumi,
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 18/12/15 04:27:
>> Does this additional background change your opinion or do you still feel the same?
>> (If you still feel the same, fair enough and I understand)
> I understand and agree that the overall timeline is important, my
> concern is that we are overstretching our own mandate. But I also see
> Mwendwa's point the the CRISP Team is de-facto an informal voice of the
> numbers community as far as the transition is concerned.
> Perhaps we should share the intended reply on the iana-xfer list prior
> to sending it to the CCWG?
More information about the CRISP