I should point out that there are (very roughly) two types of input:
(1) Input regarding an active proceeding, such as the recently-concluded Open Internet one. They are subject to public disclosure (you can find all of them in the FCC ECFS), among other things, and often, but not necessarily, involve advocacy.
(2) General informational presentations that are not addressing an active proceeding and are generally understood to be providing facts. A number of SDOs routinely inform FCC staff about active standardization and technical topics and engage in related discussions. Unfortunately, the IETF tends to do less of that than others, even though there's an increasing overlap between IETF work and policy issues.
By their very nature, staff, even technical staff, at regulatory agencies need to be generalists and often need "just in time" information, so they rely on outside information provided by those willing to do so.
Henning
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:51 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/13/15 9:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 14/03/2015 15:47, Richard Shockey wrote:
> ...
>> That said. Where was ISOC in all of this? Did they ever file here? NOPE!
>> Could ISOC have been greeted at the FCC with open arms? YES! Ask those
>> questions.
Seems entirely unlikely that a problem this process suffered from was a
lack of input.
> ISOC doesn't lobby national governments, being an international body.
>
> Ask the ISOC DC Chapter whether they filed, if they still exist.
>
> Brian
>