Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference
Dear RC I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review. Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ? Regards German
2 comments: 1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change. “NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.” It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes. Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit? 2. Replace “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.” With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.” Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects. Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)? Thanks, ___Jason On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Hi Jason, Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting. Kind regards, Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net <mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote: Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc> _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Dear IANA RC members, I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list. Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes? Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net <mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net <mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote: Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc> _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
I support approving these minutes and publishing them (assuming there are no objections or further modifications needed). ___Jason On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:33 AM Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Dear IANA RC members,
I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list.
Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes?
Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Hi Nurani I have gone through the minutes and I don't personally have any reservation. They can be published as is. *./noah* neo - network engineering and operations On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:34 AM Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Dear IANA RC members,
I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list.
Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes?
Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Hi Nurani, all, Please find attached an updated version (0.3) of the minutes. This version contains the text replacement outlined by Jason in point 2 below. Once approved, I'll upload to the website. Kind regards, Susannah On 07/04/2019 22:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: Dear IANA RC members, I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list. Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes? Kind regards, Nurani On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net<mailto:nurani@nimblebits.net>> wrote: Hi Jason, Apologise for the slow response on this. On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net<mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote: 2 comments: 1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change. “NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.” It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes. Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit? Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that. 2. Replace “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.” With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.” Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects. Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting. Kind regards, Nurani Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)? Thanks, ___Jason On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net<mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote: Dear RC I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review. Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ? Regards German _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc -- Susannah Gray NRO Secretariat Support www.nro.net<http://www.nro.net>
Thank you, Susannah. Nurani – I support the approval of these minutes without a meeting. -Richard Jimmerson From: <rc-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Susannah Gray <susannah@apnic.net> Date: Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:58 PM To: "rc@nro.net" <rc@nro.net> Subject: Re: [IANA-RC] Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference Hi Nurani, all, Please find attached an updated version (0.3) of the minutes. This version contains the text replacement outlined by Jason in point 2 below. Once approved, I'll upload to the website. Kind regards, Susannah On 07/04/2019 22:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: Dear IANA RC members, I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list. Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes? Kind regards, Nurani On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net<mailto:nurani@nimblebits.net>> wrote: Hi Jason, Apologise for the slow response on this. On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net<mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote: 2 comments: 1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change. “NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.” It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes. Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit? Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that. 2. Replace “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.” With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.” Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects. Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting. Kind regards, Nurani Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)? Thanks, ___Jason On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net<mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote: Dear RC I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review. Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ? Regards German _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc -- Susannah Gray NRO Secretariat Support www.nro.net<http://www.nro.net>
Hi all, I also support the approval of the minutes. Cheers, Felipe
On 8 Apr 2019, at 20:00, Richard Jimmerson <richardj@arin.net> wrote:
Thank you, Susannah.
Nurani – I support the approval of these minutes without a meeting.
-Richard Jimmerson
From: <rc-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Susannah Gray <susannah@apnic.net> Date: Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:58 PM To: "rc@nro.net" <rc@nro.net> Subject: Re: [IANA-RC] Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference
Hi Nurani, all, Please find attached an updated version (0.3) of the minutes. This version contains the text replacement outlined by Jason in point 2 below. Once approved, I'll upload to the website. Kind regards, Susannah On 07/04/2019 22:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear IANA RC members,
I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list.
Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes?
Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net <mailto:nurani@nimblebits.net>> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net <mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net <mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>-- Susannah Gray NRO Secretariat Support www.nro.net <http://www.nro.net/>
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Thank you Susannah. Thank you also to those of you who have spoken in support of approving these minutes as they stand now, on the mailing list (without waiting for the meeting at the end of the year). I will give the group until the end of the week to provide any further modifications to the minutes. If there are no further comments or objections this week, I propose we move forward and approve the minutes. Kind regards, Nurani
On 8 Apr 2019, at 20:00, Richard Jimmerson <richardj@arin.net> wrote:
Thank you, Susannah.
Nurani – I support the approval of these minutes without a meeting.
-Richard Jimmerson
From: <rc-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Susannah Gray <susannah@apnic.net> Date: Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:58 PM To: "rc@nro.net" <rc@nro.net> Subject: Re: [IANA-RC] Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference
Hi Nurani, all, Please find attached an updated version (0.3) of the minutes. This version contains the text replacement outlined by Jason in point 2 below. Once approved, I'll upload to the website. Kind regards, Susannah On 07/04/2019 22:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear IANA RC members,
I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list.
Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes?
Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net <mailto:nurani@nimblebits.net>> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net <mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net <mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>-- Susannah Gray NRO Secretariat Support www.nro.net <http://www.nro.net/>
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
I support approval of the minutes and the publishing of the minutes without the need for a meeting. Thanks, ___Jason On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 5:32 AM Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Thank you Susannah.
Thank you also to those of you who have spoken in support of approving these minutes as they stand now, on the mailing list (without waiting for the meeting at the end of the year).
I will give the group until the end of the week to provide any further modifications to the minutes.
If there are no further comments or objections this week, I propose we move forward and approve the minutes.
Kind regards, Nurani
On 8 Apr 2019, at 20:00, Richard Jimmerson <richardj@arin.net> wrote:
Thank you, Susannah.
Nurani – I support the approval of these minutes without a meeting.
-Richard Jimmerson
*From: *<rc-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Susannah Gray < susannah@apnic.net> *Date: *Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:58 PM *To: *"rc@nro.net" <rc@nro.net> *Subject: *Re: [IANA-RC] Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference
Hi Nurani, all, Please find attached an updated version (0.3) of the minutes. This version contains the text replacement outlined by Jason in point 2 below. Once approved, I'll upload to the website. Kind regards, Susannah On 07/04/2019 22:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear IANA RC members,
I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list.
Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes?
Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
--
Susannah Gray
NRO Secretariat Support
www.nro.net
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Dear colleagues, I have heard support for the approval of the latest IANA RC meeting, and no objections. Therefore, I believe we can approve the minutes. Thank you all. Kind regards, Nurani
On 9 Apr 2019, at 11:32, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Thank you Susannah.
Thank you also to those of you who have spoken in support of approving these minutes as they stand now, on the mailing list (without waiting for the meeting at the end of the year).
I will give the group until the end of the week to provide any further modifications to the minutes.
If there are no further comments or objections this week, I propose we move forward and approve the minutes.
Kind regards, Nurani
On 8 Apr 2019, at 20:00, Richard Jimmerson <richardj@arin.net <mailto:richardj@arin.net>> wrote:
Thank you, Susannah.
Nurani – I support the approval of these minutes without a meeting.
-Richard Jimmerson
From: <rc-bounces@nro.net <mailto:rc-bounces@nro.net>> on behalf of Susannah Gray <susannah@apnic.net <mailto:susannah@apnic.net>> Date: Monday, April 8, 2019 at 1:58 PM To: "rc@nro.net <mailto:rc@nro.net>" <rc@nro.net <mailto:rc@nro.net>> Subject: Re: [IANA-RC] Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference
Hi Nurani, all, Please find attached an updated version (0.3) of the minutes. This version contains the text replacement outlined by Jason in point 2 below. Once approved, I'll upload to the website. Kind regards, Susannah On 07/04/2019 22:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear IANA RC members,
I understand from Jason that this satisfies his concerns. As our next IANA RC meeting is not until the end of the year, I suggest we move to approve these minutes on the mailing list.
Could I ask you all to please review the minutes and unless you have any further modifications or correction, support an approval of these minutes?
Kind regards, Nurani
On 4 Apr 2019, at 14:31, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net <mailto:nurani@nimblebits.net>> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Apologise for the slow response on this.
On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net <mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote:
2 comments:
1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change.
“NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.”
It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes.
Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit?
Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that.
2. Replace
“JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.”
With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed.
The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.”
Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects.
Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting.
Kind regards,
Nurani
Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)?
Thanks,
___Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net <mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>-- Susannah Gray NRO Secretariat Support www.nro.net <http://www.nro.net/>
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net <mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc>
I have no additional comments on the minutes and am also good with Jason’s edit. Thank you to the team for an excellent job with the drafting of the minutes. -Richard Jimmerson From: <rc-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:31 AM To: Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net> Cc: German Valdez Avilés <german@apnic.net>, "rc@nro.net" <rc@nro.net> Subject: Re: [IANA-RC] Minutes 20 March 2019 Teleconference Hi Jason, Apologise for the slow response on this. On 29 Mar 2019, at 03:49, Jason Schiller <jason-phone@schiller.net<mailto:jason-phone@schiller.net>> wrote: 2 comments: 1. I don’t have a suggested change for the first one, but would like to draw your attention the follow notes, and provide my impression of what this note is missing. Hopefully someone with a more clear recollection can suggest a specific change. “NN continued that the RIR staff and the NRO Secretariat should consider this comment. The report was published on the NRO website and there might be accessibility considerations that need to be taken into account or there might need to be changes in the way the report was displayed on the website.” It is my impression that the flavor of this comment was in light of this work being out of the RC’s scope, and that it should really fall to the RIRs and/or the NRO to address accessibility (being it is on their sight, and that it may require commitment of resources well above what a handful of volunteers can offer). I don’t get that impression from the notes. Can someone confirm if this matches their recollection, and if so maybe suggest an edit? Indeed, that is what I was suggesting, as most of the accessibility considerations really apply more to the website and how the report is made available. But I feel that the paragraph in the minutes convey that. 2. Replace “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now note that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations.” With “JS noted that the RC had just agreed to change its Operating Procedures. The previous text made it sound it like the RC’s responsibility was to simply make sure that community was aware that there was an open comment period and that the comments would be collected and reviewed. The new procedures now narrows the scope, noting that the RC is only interested in feedback from the community that is relevant to the IANA number services operations, but otherwise generally opens the responsibility, clarifying that the RC should be continuously engaged with the community.” Wrt publishing the minutes, personally I would be comfortable publishing final or draft minutes given there has been sufficient discussion (or at least a large number of members saying sounds good to me) on list and no one objects. Taking into consideration your suggested amendment, I am satisfied with the minutes from the last RC meeting. Kind regards, Nurani Anyone care to suggest a specific edit on my first point (or at least chime in and let me know if your recollection differs or supports my recollection)? Thanks, ___Jason On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM German Valdez <german@apnic.net<mailto:german@apnic.net>> wrote: Dear RC I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review. Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ? Regards German _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc _______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net<mailto:Rc@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Hello German, Thank you for the minutes, as I was not present, I have no comment. Have a nice week-end all ! Cordialement, ___________________________________________ Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems b.cherrier@micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) ___________________________________________ On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:52, German Valdez wrote:
Dear RC
I'm attaching minutes from last week teleconference for your review.
Given that the next IANA RC teleconference is scheduled for the last quarter of the year, it would be possible to seek for an approval of this minutes on the list instead of waiting some months before his publication ? or are you ok to publish this minutes as draft ?
Regards
German
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
participants (8)
-
Bertrand Cherrier -
Felipe Victolla Silveira -
German Valdez -
Jason Schiller -
Noah -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Richard Jimmerson -
Susannah Gray