[address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?

On 25 Jul 2009, at 17:44, Greg wrote:

> You can only see how fast "large organization friendly" proposals go  
> through and are accepted - this is just my personal view :) See the  
> multiple /24 allocations for cTLDs that just got accepted.

It's not clear what point, if any, you're making here.

The recent change to provide space to TLDs for anycasting was  
discussed on this list. Everyone had a chance to contribute to that  
policy development. Many did. Including some like me who represent no  
large organisation or even an LIR. The consensus was that these  
allocations would be a Good Thing for the Internet, not just the TLD  
operators who would get the space. Everybody and everything using the  
Internet benefits if the DNS infrastructure for things like TLDs is  
made more robust by anycasting, there's not just a small number of DNS  
hosting companies offering commercial anycast services, etc, etc.

I fail to understand why you'd characterise this policy as being  
"large organisation friendly". It's clearly for the benefit of  
everyone using the Internet. Oh and most TLD registries are not large  
organisations. The biggest of them have turnover and staffing  
equivalent to a modest ISP. My guess is the TLD registries that are  
NCC members will probably be in the small membership category because,  
comparitively speaking, they don't need or use a lot of numbering  
resources.

Now it may be that large organisations are better placed than small  
ones to participate in policy discussions or attend RIPE meetings.  
That's just a a fact of life. However it doesn't mean policy-making is  
dominated by those large organisations. The barrier for participation  
in policy discussions could hardly be any lower: a mail/web client and  
some understanding of English. Your complaint, if it is indeed a  
complaint, seems to be a bit like moaning about the government when  
you've not even bothered to vote.