The US regulatory process provides both individuals and organizations opportunities for input, both through written and oral contributions. Submitting a comment is easier than writing an I-D, as no XML is required, but there are deadlines ("comment periods") just as for I-Ds.
From my experience, FCC staff are generally more than willing to meet individuals willing to provide technical information, particularly if they have done their homework and are not just shilling as for-hire experts. If you look at the citations in any major FCC item, you'll see plenty of references to individual faculty presentations. For various reasons, the faculty visiting the FCC tend to be law professors, rather than engineering, but that's mostly self-selection.
However, engineers should also realize that the high-order-bits of decisions are not merely technical. They tend to involve legal and economic efficiency arguments that are rarely clear-cut - they often involve predictions on how a decision will affect investment, competition, public safety and human behavior, among others.
It's important to get the technical details right, but it's at least as important to recognize that this is not just (or even mainly) about the proper definition of IP addresses or "best effort(s)".
Henning
(Disclaimer: I work part-time for the FCC; this is my personal opinion.)
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian,
> Brian E. Carpenter wrote :
> ISOC doesn't lobby national governments, being an international body.
> Ask the ISOC DC Chapter whether they filed, if they still exist.
I have been wondering about that part. I lean towards thinking that it would not have changed anything anyway, as the FCC voted on party lines as expected. The prom queen is known before the prom event.
I have learned much from you; is there anything we could have done, besides James T. Kirk time machine ?
Michel.