Andy:

Tabled for further discussion - decision to be made by XXX meeting. Need further input from XXXX. YYYY who's an expert at XXX was not available for input at previous meeting.

Rules are sufficient as written - see XXXX. Same function can be accomplished via XXXX.

Not w/in the spirit of IT - exceeds allowable perameters, infringes on XXXX, would open the door for XXXX


Correct me if I am wrong, but the discussions that go on are not limited these 'canned responses'. With the fast track being published on line there is no concern for word count that gets published. The appeals portion of the FT spares no space for detail, why does this?

You hit it right on the head, they are 'canned responses' where as there is much more backround on most of them. Lately the FT hasn't even addressed all the letters it has rcvd either.

Matt