This part scares me. The RIPE policy development process has to be as open and transparent as possible. When groups of stakeholders discuss RIPE policy development outside the 'official' channel (this mailing list) the process gets a lot less transparent...
This is why it is so difficult for us as working group chairs to use statements like those from ETNO in the policy development process. We can't see how the statement was created and what the reasons and arguments were. I understand why ETNO members work together to think about such a complex subject as 2007-08, but to be able to participate in RIPE policy development those members will have to discuss the policy here on this mailing list where everyone can follow that discussion, and not only inside ETNO.
I think the major problem in this case was calling it a 'statement' or 'position'. Such a name does not (seem to) give much room for discussion. If ETNO had published a list of concerns about the proposal and those concerns were discussed on this list there would be no problem.
to take an analog from the way organizations such as the ietf handle this o etno should be encouraged to think and confer all they want o but this wg is made up of individual experts (and lirs?) and people here speak as such randy