As you will see from my response, I can accept most of the proposed names in the interests of reaching an agreement, but favor
HTLVIII/LAV on the grounds of common usage and right of discovery. It seems to me that all of the proposals do some disservice
to what is known about homologies, or overstate some aspect of the tropisms or clinical spectrum. I only suggested human
lentivirus type 1 as a compromise that is neutral with respect to the latter issues, and likely correct with respect to classification.
I also would underscore your caveat on dealing with the media, having just been egregiously misquoted in my attempt to explicate
the CELL article on the relationship of HTLVIII/LAV to visna. However, we do need some kind of public pronouncement soon,
before we embarrass ourselves by the inordinate attention we appear to be devoting to agreeing on a name for the virus.