Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi <shenzhi at cnnic dot 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-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
>> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot 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.tinka at seacom dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>