Let's go back to first principles for a moment. I think we are losing sight of our "assignment."
The primary purpose of this document is to provide a neutral synthesis and analysis of the public comments.
A possible secondary purpose of this document is to provide some guidance to the CCWG in considering the public comments and how (if at all) the CCWG Proposal should be revised in light of these comments.
This is not supposed to be a "think piece" independent of the public comments. I'm not saying that such a document is inappropriate. But it's not our assignment.
I think the topics under discussion at this point would be more appropriate for another document, and not for the analysis of comments. Indeed, the very idea that we could have a number of disagreements or open issues in an analysis of public comments provides a very significant clue that we have strayed from our task of neutral reportage. There should be few if any disagreements when it comes to accurately stating the results of the public comment period, and indeed, I think there are few if any disagreements with regard to that part of our document.
It's when we turn to "making news" instead of "reporting news" that we lose our way. I don't think these topics are out of place in WP4 or in the CCWG, but I think they are out of place in this document. I think they are more appropriate for the framework or rationale document that we need to produce, or for some other document that is the output of WP4 (but which is not the analysis of comments).
At this point, I would very strongly urge us to pare back this document and to move the WP's comments, discussions, etc. (except the very few that provide direct guidance to the CCWG in considering a particular comment or comments) into another document (or documents, if we want to get some pieces circulating more quickly into the CCWG, while we continue to work on other pieces).
Greg