Re: [apnic-talk] Community Statement to ITU
> 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?)
I agree with you that the PDP is ideal way if we didn't need to consider the timeline.
However, the timeline is very limited actually, since we should submit this statement
as a contribution for next ITU IPv6 meeting on 15-16 Mar. (Otherwise, it will not be discussed)
Original submission deadline was this Tue., and ITU kindly accepted to postpone it,
but still it is TODAY.
Also, I would like to point out that there was many voices from the floor to request
asking consensus in the session, while I hesitated.
So, I believe, remaining way is only making contribution based on agreed statement text in the session.
Of course, we can modify not so substantial points, but we should keep key points.
This is the reason why I suggested you to writing your submission.
Rgs,
Masato
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Manderson [mailto:terry at terrym dot net]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:42 PM
> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Community Statement to ITU
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 05/03/2010, at 4:10 PM, <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp> 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.
> >
>
> understood..
>
> >
> > 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 ipv6 at apnic dot net.
> > 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
> ipv6 at apnic dot net individually.
>
> Cheers
> Terry
>