Thanks for responding.
On 02/09/2009, at 10:25 PM, German Valdez wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. We are currently reviewing APNIC's
> activities for 2010 based on budget predictions and the priorities
> identified through the most recent stakeholder survey and additional
> community feedback received since then.
While I see that APNIC has a challenging time ahead in budgeting, I
went off to review the results from the 2009 survey (better to see if
something like policy hubs are actually required in reality apart from
just one or two who may think it a 'good idea') and headed straight to
the comments. I often feel comments are more insightful to the varied
(and sometimes) subjective interpretations of 1-10 scale answers. I
focused mainly on the questions relating to the policy development
process etc. It appears that some of the comments in the report are,
or have been truncated.
page 34 of 205, some stake-holders made comments but it appears that
they end abruptly.
"What are the conditions that a sig chair accepts a policy? What is
consensus? and how can
consensus be reached in a room? the consensus process should be moved
to the mailing
list _only_ and a policy lifecycle created. The meeting should be a
place for as"
"It has become more effective since Randy took over the chairmanship
of the Policy SIG. I
think the process is only as efficient as the people running it and
tit needs to be actively
managed by someone committed to helping the participants understand
"The one thing that always bothers me about RIR (all of them, based on
exposure in other areas) is the relatively small number of people that
driving the whole process. There seems to be only one or two dozen
'regulars' that rea"
Can this be rectified?
> Looking forward to meet you in another APNIC meeting in 2010.
apnic-talk mailing list