Richard Shockey wrote: > There are idiots that believe all packets containing cat > videos are created equal but we know better. That is the larger issue we > confront. Your broader point getting senior poitico's in a region to engage at a high level such as open meetings and hold round table discussions bringing their policy advisors with IETF / IAB is a good one. ISOC and IETF did some good work during the last London meeting but it didn't work closely enough with the chapter in setting up meetings so I can't really say if the opportunities - which were numerous - were nailed. There has been no follow up project from either ISOC or IETF with us since which is perhaps more significant. With strong IETF participation I organised a Parliamentary level meeting on Surveillance / pervasive monitoring issues at the London meeting but the broader challenges for network infrastructures around filtering, weakening encryption, and systemic failure to engage with IPv6 remain challenging to convey into policy. There needs to be a longer range commitment to keep at these issues or we end up with well meaning but scattered and uncoordinated initiatives that help communicate a point or two but can't shift the climate. The web community have been much more successful in getting their message across. It is a truism perhaps but policy is focussed on what it can see in terms of deliverables and that is easier to dress in a browser metaphor than in a packet. But that emphasis is more engaged with issues such as open data, open source, and presentation of government services to achieve generational opportunity for savings. The promise of tangible rewards has opened up significant funding sources to the web communities, deservingly. The other policy area that has taken significant time has been in the "governance" area such as the various ITU meetings particularly in the run up to Dubai and since, the Net Mundial, WEF, and the pervasive noise around NTIA transitioning its IANA role and of course the long running challenge of what to do through the IGF. What I am saying I suppose is that there are a lot of threads in the policy space and complexity is not just in the technical demarcations between subject matter areas but in who to engage with and the level of clue and opinion and interests on all sides. This work really does need commitment across our communities to support it. But if one starts off by saying "idiots ...." because they don't get "xxx " then you are really saying you don't get why they think "yyy". In some senses that may be the larger challenge. I am not saying you are wrong about the analysis but that it is not a policy objective or analysis that is usable. In policy terms we face realities such as my cat won't tolerate other cats. When she purrs she is convinced she has priority, because she has the loudest yowl in the neighbourhood. I haven't dared broach the existence of dogs. best Christian -- Christian de Larrinaga