Hi Ed,
support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement.
Assuming I'm the dissenting individual - I had a talk with Jim
actually you were the first person quoted, this reference was to Bill.
yesterday. My comments were strictly related to the words used and how they might be interpreted, not the point being made. I.e., no substantive argument. In the sense that editing anything means a new cycle of review, rewording for clarification would mean that there'd be no time for vetting, etc., and still get this to the NTIA in time - you can say that I agree with the message being sent (if not the exact words).
Thanks for the clarification. Since this would even more contribute to the consensus already declared, I'd rather not reword our statement and hope you do not feel misrepresented. -Peter