Re: [adm] Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response

[Peter Koch pk@localhost]

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