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> 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