Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

To: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:49:12 +0900
Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jTZNRtSMsBiJ+LsmyZMLUr4+Y97tKSH/fVnwBfcDH0o=; b=rOjvCFB+L1XmqcdSM0BRjPWZyOMzqdA/kejszlWF4FofmIlevRa+aIuGCZGsR3ONga kbk2mDEUt0A+zXLR/DqyNGZCcXuSNd9Qo/KrRqBa5H8F8PuZXI5bUNH9rPAnA0pdCDnB wtme7+bFk9rdz8N0gZdeJFymNuV8qWyGHlzorV3dzlbxkFIiCun4kmWQpsjzmS25rWxX nUDYKLyqKvl3Rv7hLyeq9bXkX1jSbzKQ9jT+Z0s0/TlPkLzbFDUnw/Je6LpAIjsz5rKN F9Mp4xxuzYOtBlUtqXTZX4jvniIyCW92BghqD3Bq6cOqGLRzfX/09q7Ypb5Foyp+uzps 024g==
In-reply-to: <CAK5YLgf355eMSfMDmZ=E0FW-0dNBSaOYRYYE0ojVXtypdrDEdQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

Aftab and All,

I'm very sorry that I didn't express myself well in the meeting and in the report,

(please understand that Adam and I should make this report in 15mins)

but I expect the author to improve prop-115 based on the discussion and the survey result.

Regards,

Masato Yamanishi

APNIC SIG Chair

2015-09-14 22:13 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>:

I believe, "pushed back to mailing list for discussion" and "returned the proposal to authors for further consideration" are two different things.

From Transcript:
    So I need to decide how to proceed with this proposal

    itself.

        Let me push back this proposal to the mailing list

    and also ask to have such survey to the AMM this

    evening.  Is it okay?
From AMM Report:

Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information
in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open
Policy Meeting.

The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research
into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for
further consideration.

Best Wishes,

Aftab A. Siddiqui.