> On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi <shen...@cnnic.cn> wrote: > > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background > instroductions > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very > good > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion. > > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider more interesting, then probably not. If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into shopping time, etc. As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest. Owen > > > Cheers, > Jessica Shen > > > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 >> 收件人: Mark Tinka >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the >> ASN eligibility criteria >> >> 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 > * 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
