That's what we strive for. Something for everyone :)
On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens <ske...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > 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 > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> 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 >> >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >> > > > -- > ...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus) > -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* 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
