Hello Masato, I think you mean (one opposition for prop-114 and one support for prop-115)
Not 104 and 105. Adam On 14/09/2015 18:28, "[email protected] on behalf of Masato Yamanishi" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > While now I'm seeing a lot of comments on the list and it is good thing, > let me ask you to state these comments before asking consensus in OPM. > > While I have announced three proposal discussed in Jakarta, only two comments > (one opposition for prop-104 and one support for prop-105) were made on the > list. > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/08/ > Even in the meeting, the discussion was not so active compared to previous > meetings. > > Without enough comments and discussions before asking consensus, authors > cannot > improve their proposals in timely manner. Also, few discussion makes difficult > for Chairs > to gauging community's opinion. As a result, proposals may need more meetings > to > reach consensus or fail. Certainly, "no interest" is one of possible opinions, > but it is not easy to distinguish them from "not yet been interested" or "just > hesitate". > > IMO, current situation is not bottom-up discussion and rather it looks like a > voting > for the agenda which were provided by somebody. > > So, please express your opinion and have productive discussion before asking > consensus > in Auckland and future meetings. > > Thank you for your understanding. > > Regards, > Masato Yamanishi > APNIC Policy SIG Chair > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
