On 05/03/2010, at 4:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Terry and all,
> # Sorry strange reply style, but my mail client has some problem,
> so let me just copy and paste
> I'm Masato YAMANISHI and was a chair of the session.
> Since this statement was already reached consensus in the session,
> so I think it' not so good idea to add one more item in this stage.
> Instead, I suggest to you writing your submission and send it to
> [email protected]
> Now we are trying to refer from APNIC web to each submission, we can also
> refer your submission if you will made.
I was thinking, glibly, that this would mimic the PDP in some way... (ie
multiple consensus points to allow all stakeholder review and comment? yes? no?)
Given (in my reading) that the document came from the floor and I couldn't
actively participate at the time due to my other commitments I was hoping for a
second chance.. I accept that time is an issue and don't want to draw it out
but I am a little confused as to the process being followed.
I apologise if this sounds pedantic, I think 'how we get there' is just as
important as 'what we say' in this community statement.
If that isn't the case then I will make my submission to [email protected]
apnic-talk mailing list