In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate.
The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen > On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > > While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs > more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between > the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that > affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not > just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators > filter against as an example. > > Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations > and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place > within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for > them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. > > I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. > > Mark. > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
