[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback requested] Discussions on delaying CCWG Timelines

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Sat Dec 19 01:02:50 CET 2015

Thank you John and Paul for your comments.

Sent to the ianaxfer list. I plan to share it with the CCWG, on Tue 22nd Dec, unless there are concerns expressed from our community.

Thanks all for your feedback!


On 2015/12/19 5:49, Paul Rendek wrote:
> I also agree with this approach.
> Thanks,
> Paul
> On 12/18/15 3:36 PM, Sweeting, John wrote:
>> I agree with the suggestion below, it seems to be a fair and open way to
>> go.
>> On 12/18/15, 3:58 AM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Izumi Okutani"
>> <crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Izumi
>>> 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?
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrei
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>> ________________________________
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list