That was bad planning :(. I was thinking of doing a lightening, but policy is more important.
...Skeeve On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning > talks on Thursday. > It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators. > > On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen <shen...@cnnic.cn > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','shen...@cnnic.cn');>> wrote: > >> Owen, >> >> What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'? >> >> Jessica Shen >> >> >> > -----原始邮件----- >> > 发件人: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> >> > 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六) >> > 收件人: "Shen Zhi" <shen...@cnnic.cn> >> > 抄送: "Mark Tinka" <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> > 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in >> the ASN eligibility criteria >> > >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > -- > -- > Dean Pemberton > > Technical Policy Advisor > InternetNZ > +64 21 920 363 (mob) > d...@internetnz.net.nz > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz');> > > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. > -- ...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus)
* 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
