There were 107 participates of 12 different nationalities who joined in this conference. They included professors and experts from 12 countries, such as United Kingdom, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kingdom Of Nepal, People's Republic Of China, Malaysia, Republic Of Singapore, Pakistan, Canada and Thailand some of whom served a guest speakers and moderators.  This conference is significant for two reasons; first of all, it is being held with great honour here at RILCA, which is celebrating the 37th anniversary of its establishment next week. It was founded in 1974 as the enthusiastic response to the vital idea of Her Majesty Queen Sirikit of Thailand that linguistic academicians should be produced to communicate with peoples with a wide diversity of races, languages and cultures in Thailand and in Asia; the second reason is that this conference provides a well-established forum for us all to share, showcase, identify, enhance, support and discuss our knowledge, experiences and perspectives about working with communities in concerted attempts to effectively and sustainably revitalize linguistic and cultural heritage.  22 papers were selected to present in plenary session.
For evaluation, a questionnaire was used to gauge the degree of satisfaction of participants.  The questionnaire included closed-end questions (5 point scale) and open-ended questions.  In total, 84 completed questionnaires were returned. The average mean scores of participants were converted into the participants’ satisfaction level as follows:

• Mean scores 1.00 - 1.49              =     Very Poor
• Mean scores 1.50 – 2.49             =     Poor
• Mean scores 2.50 - 3.49              =     Okay
• Mean scores 3.50 - 4.49              =     Good
• Mean scores 4.50 - 5.00              =     Excellent

            This questionnaire covers 6 aspects for which the participants’ satisfaction was graded namely: (1) overall of conference, (2) venue, (3) program schedule (4) plenary sessions (5) parallel sessions (6) conference website. The results of this evaluation were as follows:

The overall satisfactions mean score was 4.19 which equates to “good”. The following are comments from the open-ended questionnaire:

• อยากให้มีประชุมแบบนี้ต่อไปเรื่อยๆ
• I got a lot of knowledgeable achievement. I enjoyed and satisfied full of time in the conference.
• Systematic conference with helpful volunteers.
• Well-arranged with selection of good papers presenters got enough time to place their view and argument.
• Good reception. Nice students, very helpful
• Very well organized, good mix of session types
• I have never ever attached such conference though I have visited many pram of the world including the USA.

Venues of the conference mean scores were 4.23, which equates “good”.  The following are comments from the open-ended questionnaire:
-        ดีมาก เพราะใกล้สถานที่ดูงานด้วย (ไทดำ)
-        Small is beautiful
-        Perfect location and facilities.
-        Quite nice. There is no word to express the satisfaction.

For the program schedule, the mean score was 4.13 which shown at the “Good” level.  The following are comments from the open-ended questionnaire:
-        Time is always valuable all of us so thanks for program managing conference program schedule were very good.
-        Well managed and organized.
-Clashes are inevitable, but it was a shame not to see it all.
-        Overall papers were very good but some were weak and disappearing, reflecting lack of knowledge of ……………..

• Time!!! Everything is finished in time on scheduled.
• It’s quite long to have 60+60 mins without a break.
• In the second round table, there was only 40 mins left for questions and discussions.
• I thought the main conference room was too big for us. We were sitting for apart from each other and especially the younger Thai (student) helpers kept on ……….to each other in the last rows, which I found quite disrespectful.

For the plenary sessions, the overall mean score was 4.16 which shown at a “Good” level.  The following are comments from the open-ended questionnaire:
-        All parts was excellent no comments.
-        Some poster sessions should be included in order to involve the young learners.
-        It has been an   experience new idea and thought have some personally for me and it me to work better and in a more fruit full way
-        Very good conference but needs more improvement in choosing presenters and in future some good themes.
-        Everything was good and concerned with language document.

For the most relevant sessions, the following are comments the open-ended questionnaire:

• I am really impressed with the idea. I am having plenary series during
• Both sessions with main keynote speakers and the round table discussion moderated by Peter and Julia.
• The round table discussions.
• Both days keynote address by Peter Austin and Stephanie Pillai.
• Round table discussion I and II
• The round table have had a ………………..approach to broad theme on by documentation and ………that I have …………………..
• Session of Toshi from Okinawa, Japan
• It was good management, well organized.

For the conference website, the mean score was 4.00 was shown as at a “Good” level.  The following are comments from the open-ended questionnaire:
                          No comment

Comments and suggestion about future topics you would be interested in learning about in future conferences:

• การฟื้นฟูภาษา , action research, community based research
• Sociolinguistics Survey and ethno linguistic studies should be included in order to catch the theme of DLAP.
• National / regional traditions of language documentation.
• I would be interested to participate in a conference where there would be representation from marginal people and policy makers to determine the effective policies to include and implement courses on endangered long wage and mother tongue education.
• Multilingual
• Training models for native speakers
• Working with communities and facilities especially on speech communities.
• The use of mother tongue through language documentation.

Comments and suggestion about location, speakers or general suggestions regarding future conferences:

• DLAP should go round to the respective countries rather than reporting in the same venue if possible.
• Speakers from community representation and government policy makers.
• Contents on the website should be giddily updated.
• Bangkok
• Manila
• Tokyo
• Indonesia: reason is that there are more than 500 languages. Carole Tenmitte.