[RZERC] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT Minutes 28 February teleconference

[Russ Mundy]

Thanks, Mario, this version of the minutes look fine to me.  Russ

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Mario Aleman <mario.aleman at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear members, 
> 
> Thank you for providing your comments to the Meeting Minutes. 
> 
> Based on your feedback, please find attached the edits to the document in the following files in .doc and PDF.
> 
> Should you have more comments to add, please let me know 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mario
> 
> On 3/14/17, 3:32 PM, "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:
> 
>    Everyone,
> 
>    I like Kim's wording and withdraw my proposal to use "passive".
> 
>    DW
> 
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:17 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.”
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> <28 February RZERC Meeting Minutes_V02.docx><28 February RZERC Meeting Minutes_V02.pdf>_______________________________________________
> RZERC mailing list
> RZERC at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rzerc