[ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66

On 1 May 2013, at 20:14, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote:

> Just to explain a bit of rational behind the agenda to you and others.

	Thanks, Kurtis.

> We have the allocated slot on the agenda and I believe it's to late to shuffle around.
> In hind sight perhaps we should have expected this and asked for more time.

	Right (x2), but we are where we are, and need to make pragmatic use
	of the time available for this WG at RIPE 66, of the meeting web site,
	and of this mailing list.  In the present circumstances, I would suggest 
	that material for which presentation time is not available, but which 
	nevertheless needs to be noted at the meeting, be sent either to the 
	WG mailing list or to the meeting archive and be drawn to the 
	participants' attention by mention from the chair during the meeting.

	If people find this idea useful, I'ld also suggest "Items to be noted, 
	for which no meeting time could be made available" as an additional 
	agenda item, allocated a very few minutes.

	I'ld also suggest that proposers and Emilio take the opportunity to do
	some behind-the-scenes homework early in the week of RIPE 66 in order
	to minimize the risk of having to spend scarce meeting time resolving
	any confusion which may arise.

> The RIPE NCC presentations used to be given in both the AGM and NCC-Services. It was decided by the WG Chairs (all of us, and if I remember correctly the NCC board as well) that it was redundant and time consuming and as long as the NCC-Services WG is held before the AGM, we will only give the updates ones and in the NCC-Services WG. Hence the time allocated to them.

	I think the reasons for that decision are still good ones.
	I believe that allocating time in the WG for the "public shop-window" 
	of the GM has the advantages of added transparency and improved
	efficiency.

> Now, this was before we started having policy proposal in NCC-Services and agenda time allocations (not to say assignments ;-) didn't have to take this into account.

	The allocations may need some more re-balancing.  The current
	draft allows 70 minutes for the NCC and 20 minutes for the
	activity in progress in the WG.  That's a data point, and neither
	an argument nor a criticism.

> However, building on what Emilio tells us from the APWG experience, the updates of ongoing policies normally don't take that long or have that much discussion. We might be wrong of course, but we have to guess at something.

	Absolutely.  You have to guess at something, and I expect 
	Sander and Gert have used just this method over the years to 
	reach their current level of expertise on shepherding policy 
	proposals through the process.

	AA-WG is in a similar position to NCCS-WG as a newcomer to the
	policy development process, and will also have a learning curve 
	to climb.

> We have shortened time allocated to the NCC presentations and I'd be happy to go back and look over that if the WG think we need more discussion time for these proposals. But me and Bijal can't take them of the agenda and I think we have to (at least for now) also respect there is enough time to give those presentations before the AGM. 

	Right again.

	Do let me know if you think it will be helpful for me to prepare
	an update on 2012-07 from the proposers' POV and send it either to
	the list or to the meeting archive as such an "Item to be noted" as
	I suggested above.

	See you in just over a week.

	Best regards,
	Niall