[rpd] suggestion for next meetings

[PDWG Chair]

Thank you Jordi.

We will take this into consideration.

Regards,

On 03/06/2021 12:16, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

> Hi Chairs, all,

>

> I like the format that you adopted for the DPP presentations, however I've a suggestion for next meetings.

>

> Some of those, suggestions, actually have been "followed" in the meeting yesterday this way, but I think it is better to "formally" have that explicitly defined for next meetings.

>

> The major change I'm proposing is that some times, policy proposals are a just a paragraph change (or a few ones), while in other situations they have many changes to full sections of the CPM, etc. and complexity varies, so time must be adjusted to that.

>

> It is especially important that the authors can respond to the impact analysis and chairs contentious issues presentation *after* this has been presented, otherwise we have a "disordered" presentation (authors present, respond to the analysis impact that has not been presented, then the analysis impact is presented) which is confusing for the community (unless everyone has read the analysis impact in the web site) and takes extra time.

>

> In fact the response from authors to the AI, was done in f2f meetings.

>

> Actual:

>

> Presentation of the policy proposal by Author 8 minutes

> Presentation of Staff Impact Assessment by Secretariat 2 minutes

> Presentation on contentious areas by the Co-Chairs 5 minutes

> OpenMic Discussions by the PDWG + Q&A comments/questions 20 minutes

> Response by the Authors 10 minutes

> Announcement of the decision of the Co-Chairs 5 minutes

>

> Proposed:

>

> Presentation of the policy proposal by Author 5-15 minutes

> 	- Some proposals may have a single paragraph and require just 3-4 slides. Other proposals are more complex and we should accommodate to that.

> Presentation of Staff Impact Assessment by Secretariat 2-5 minutes

> 	- Same as above, the impact analysis may be much shorter if there are no open issues from the staff, or longer otherwise.

> Presentation on contentious areas by the Co-Chairs 2-5 minutes

> 	- Same as above.

> NEW -> 2-5 minutes for authors to respond to analysis impact and co-chairs presentations

> OpenMic Discussions by the PDWG + Q&A comments/questions 20 minutes

> Response by the Authors 10 minutes

> NEW -> this can be done in intervals, no need to have all the Q&A at once and then authors to respond. I think it should be dynamically adjusted by the chairs (as it was done yesterday). For example, if several people have the same observation, chairs can decide that repeating that is not pertinent, etc.

> Announcement of the decision of the Co-Chairs 5 minutes

> NEW -> this is what I think we should radically change. According to CPM 3.4.2 "The Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has been achieved **during** the Public Policy Meeting.". I think it is clear that the PPM starts day1 and finish day2 or day3. So the chairs could perfectly take a decision not "breaking" the flow of the meeting by 5 minutes for each proposal, but organize the agenda so the last day they have 10 minutes *after a coffee break* just to announce their consensus decisions for all the policies presented during the complete PPM. This way chairs can meet/chat after day1, after day 3 and so on, and no need to take a decision in 5 minutes. We could even "not close" the PPM agenda until day4 (for example before the AGM) so chairs have one extra day for meeting and deciding. Of course, the specific format depends on the overall AFRINIC meeting agenda, but I think that's easy to handle and stealing 10 minutes in the overall event schedule of the last day, is just fine.

>

> I've indicated after each change the reasons for that, but if any further clarifications about it are needed, happy to respond. I think nobody will complain if a policy has a different presentation/discussion time than another, considering the complexity, extension of the changes, etc. Proposals are not "presentations" they are key discussions and time should be fitted to each one and the contentiousness that implie towars being conseansuated (or not).

>

> Tks!

>   

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>   

>   

>

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> The IPv6 Company

>

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd