[RZERC] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT Minutes 28 February teleconference

[Howard Eland]

All,

First, a disclaimer: I was not on the last call, and therefore cannot speak to the accuracy of the minutes.

I like Kim’s rendition, with one exception: the use of the word “issue” (used twice), as this seems to suggest that RZERC would only be engaged if there were some sort of problem.  I would argue that RZERC could also be called upon for review of major implementation or operational changes that affect the root.

I ack that the actual definition of the word “issue” includes “an important topic”, but I believe the masses will read a negative connotation to the wording, when none is intended.

I also ack that this wordsmithing may all be a bit pedantic, specially when, in previous calls, we’ve called out that we may indeed take up a charter “clarification” (if *that* is the right word for it).

Probably more than just my $0.02…

Best,
-Howard

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:17 AM, Kim Davies <kim.davies at iana.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> My sense is there a a lot of meaning being loaded into these words for which there may not be a common understanding in the broader community. If this is an area of concern, I’d suggest being more explicit rather than relying on interpreting what “reactive”, “passive” etc. entails.
>> 
>> For example, “RZERC’s primary responsibility is considering, analyzing and reporting on issues raised to it by its members, PTI staff or the CSC. As its work program is issue-driven, there may be extended periods when RZERC does not have any active work.”
> 
> Thanks for this suggestion Kim, I think this is a better way of describing what I think we agreed to than referring to RZERC as a ‘passive committee’.  
> 
> As you note, there could be a range of interpretations of what the phrase ‘passive committee’ means in addition to what’s intended. E.g., does a 'passive committee' mean that we don’t really want RZERC to exist but someone said it had to so we’re it, sort of like that hated undergrad course that you had to take to get the degree you wanted/needed.  Being more complete in what we write is probably the way to go.
> 
> Russ
> 
>> 
>> My 2c,
>> 
>> kim
>> 
>> "rzerc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Wessels, Duane via RZERC" <rzerc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of rzerc at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>>  All,
>> 
>>  While I do prefer "RZERC should react" to "RZERC should be reactionary", I think the phrase "passive committee" better captures the sentiment of our discussion.  IMO simply saying that RZERC should react does not leave the reader with the notion that we won't also go around looking for things to keep ourselves busy.  So my proposal is to change the two occurrences of "reactionary" to "passive" in the minutes.
>> 
>>  DW
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Folks,
>>> 
>>> Instead of the current “reactionary” wording of:
>>> 
>>> 'RZERC should be a reactionary committee and consider issues raised by its members, PTI staff or CSC’
>>> 
>>> we use the following wording:
>>> 
>>> 'RZERC should consider and react as appropriate to issues raised by its members, PTI staff or CSC'
>>> 
>>> Does this capture the sense of our discussion?  If it does, I think that the wording needs to change in two parts of the minutes.
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 3:03 AM, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear RZERC,
>>>> 
>>>> I could not articipate in the call, so I won't judge the correctness of the minutes.
>>>> 
>>>>> ???reactionary committee??? sounds like we???re in Stalinist-era Russia. How about saying ???passive committee??? instead? ie RZERC is going wait for someone to ask us to do something rather than go around looking for things to keep ourselves busy.
>>>> 
>>>> However, my Cupertino provided Dictionary says "adjective; opposing political or
>>>> social progress or reform".  While there might be a small grain of intent
>>>> in this, "reactive" might be a better term, if such term is needed at all.
>>>>> From an outside reader's perspective, I wonder why the committee would
>>>> actually formally "agree" to this, since it's already stated in the charter.
>>>> What isn't spelled out in the charter, and what the committee still needs to 
>>>> figure out is the meaning of "architectural changes" and me thinks this
>>>> still belongs on our todo list.  And for those changes that we do not consider
>>>> "architectural" (without prejudice, this could be the IANA's "technical checks")
>>>> the community would probably appreciate an agreed upon point of reference.
>>>> 
>>>>> Could you *please* distribute documents, minutes, etc in a neutral format, ie PDF. This is particularly important for the stuff that goes on the RZERC web site. I have very strong religious objections to Microsoft products and formats.
>>>> 
>>>> Without the religious impetus, I'm pretty certain that most everyone on this
>>>> list would or has already violated some corporate security policy by
>>>> opening the document ...
>>>> While MS's combat editing mode might be appealing, fixed text and comments
>>>> in email should be fine.
>>>> 
>>>> -Peter
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RZERC mailing list
>>>> RZERC at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rzerc
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RZERC mailing list
>>> RZERC at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rzerc
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  RZERC mailing list
>>  RZERC at icann.org
>>  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rzerc
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RZERC mailing list
> RZERC at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rzerc