Apologies for the delay in responding, I agree to Paul’s version as it is
succinct and addresses the concern for which the SIG Charter.
Regards
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:21 AM
eeks , as clarified, the
chairs can already extend it. Therefore, no changes need to be paid in the
policy discussion timeline.
However, perhaps the community may want to work on setting up a mechanism for
reviewing policies that have been implemented.
Regards
Amrita
From: s
type of “business” with addresses for those account holders. Do you think
that’s sufficiently clear or do you think a small text clarification in the
proposal is needed?
We are seeking clarification because the current text is not clear enough.
Amrita – we could add as Jordi mentioned small
or misinterpret as it suits them.
I would request all community members to look at this proposed policy change
from the lens of bringing in a more accountable and transparent IP resource
allocation process which can be easily understood by all.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Fernando
Thank you Micheal for the support.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Michael B. Williams
Sent: 24 August 2022 11:15
To: Amrita
Cc: Fernando Frediani ; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable
I support this policy that
Hi Aftab,
I think this is a timely discussion. Looking forward to this discussion.
Regards,
Amrita
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:38 AM Aftab Siddiqui
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected
> position is defined where APNIC
