On Nov 13, 2008, at 20:18, Doug Barton wrote:
Out of curiosity, where do the comments and suggestions that I offered fit into this description?
The editing group that worked on the text over the weekend took into account all the comments that had been made on the list and accommodated them as best and as practically as possible. It was obviously impractical to include everything everyone said verbatim, so the guiding principle of the editing group was to convey the general thrust of those comments in a way that (a) didn't dilute or confuse the overall message; (b) dive into too much detail; (c) produced text that the WG as a whole (and hopefully the RIPE community) would be comfortable with. The editing group also had to consider how others outside RIPE and the WG had perceived the earlier draft. Balancing all of these demands was not an easy task, given the various dynamics and the broader audience who will be reading this response. [FYI I know some governments are taking a keen interest in what we say in response to the NTIA NoI.] I hope you can agree the editing group managed to achieve that. I apologise to anyone who feels their contribution has been overlooked because their favourite phrases didn't make it into the final version. The editing group didn't overlook those contributions. And I hope everyone appreciates that a document of this nature by definition involves compromise from all who contributed to its production.