RE: UTC Document Register Now Public

From: William_J_G Overington <>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:56:09 +0100 (BST)

On Friday 19 April 2013, Whistler, Ken <> wrote:
> It is quite unlikely that such a document would be rejected on procedural grounds, just because it was making an argument for a change of scope, rather than being a proposal that was already clearly in scope. (I assume that is what you are asking here.)
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, that was what I was asking.
Thank you for a precise and helpful answer.
William Overington
20 April 2013
Received on Sat Apr 20 2013 - 03:03:42 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Apr 20 2013 - 03:03:53 CDT