Hi Erik,

Emilio was on vacation till today I believe. Tomorrow is a public holiday in The Netherlands, so when he will catch up on his mailbox, he should be able to answer this..

There is nothing that Emilio needs to do, he just supports the WG chairs. Answering messages on the mailing list and making an agenda containing the stuff that needs to happen during the WG session are all tasks for the WG chairs :-) And I can tell, because I see Gert doing that kind of stuff all the time! ;-) Cheers, Sander

Dear All, My apologies, there will be a policy update from the RIPE NCC, please see updated agenda below: === Date: Wednesday 15 May 2013 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 65 B. Report from RIPE NCC - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) C. RIPE NCC Survey 2013 - Serge Radovcic, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. Internet Governance update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (15 minutes) E. Registration Services update - Andrew de la Haye, RIPE NCC (15 minutes) F. Policy Update: 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders 2012-08 - Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources - Emilio Madaio, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) G. Open Microphone Session Z. AOB 1. Straw Poll on following Pre-Policy Discussions: - All PDP emails, documents and websites should come with unified diff - PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN - All published documents and PDPs are maintained with git - All RIPE documents should be plain text regards, Bijal On 29 Apr 2013, at 21:17, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi Erik,

...

Emilio was on vacation till today I believe. Tomorrow is a public holiday in The Netherlands, so when he will catch up on his mailbox, he should be able to answer this..

There is nothing that Emilio needs to do, he just supports the WG chairs. Answering messages on the mailing list and making an agenda containing the stuff that needs to happen during the WG session are all tasks for the WG chairs :-)

And I can tell, because I see Gert doing that kind of stuff all the time! ;-)

Cheers, Sander

Hi Randy! On 30 apr 2013, at 19:31, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

hi bijal,

...

F. Policy Update: 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders 2012-08 - Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources - Emilio Madaio, RIPE NCC (20 minutes)

is there not a services to PI holders proposal? is there not a rpki to non-members proposal?

Emilio has just returned from vacation and us Europeans are mostly of on April 30th and May 1 so I am waiting for him to catch-up in case proposals have been submitted while he was away. Otherwise I have to admit that I am not clear which proposals you are asking about. There was the NCC board decision on RPKI certification to PI holders, but that is not a policy proposal per say, and noone has asked for slot time to discuss this (although I agree that would be good).

and are the collection of proposals not significant enough to be give more discussion time?

Just to explain a bit of rational behind the agenda to you and others. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Best regards, - kurtis -

On 2 maj 2013, at 01:16, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

last meeting, at the okura, axel and i took on board the pi issue. there is a proposal. i would like the agenda time to discuss it. as pi holders represent a very large number of holders, this is not a trivial issue.

as this is supposed to be a bottom-up community, i am willing to lead, with axel's help, of course.

We are reworking the agenda and some slots. How much time do you guess you need? 20-30 mins? What title do you want? Best regards, - kurtis -

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

On 3 maj 2013, at 12:35, Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> wrote:

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.

Agreed.

...

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.

Fully agree, it's just that this time it became a bit last minute and we are working on rebalancing it...

...

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.

I think that would be useful! Thanks!

See you in just over a week.

Looking forward to proper Guinness! Best regards, - kurtis -