Danny Younger wrote:
You will note that the ALAC has taken prior positions with respect to privacy:
Oh... you mean the 2003, 100% unaccountable, ALS-free edition of ALAC? As far as I am concerned, that slate is wiped clean. Again, you duck responsibility for justifying what you requested. Please defend your own proposal. In any case, the ALAC statement to which you referred indicates that group's failure to honor its mandate when it commented disapprovingly that:
The Task Force's recommendations to systematically enforce the accuracy of WHOIS data shift the existing balance between the interests of data users and data subjects in favor of data users. This statement should actually have been supported by ALAC, because "data users" comprise the vast bulk of At-Large which have generally been at the short end of ICANN policy.
"Data Subjects" -- with the notable but statistically tiny exception of personal domain owners, whose realm more accurately belongs within NCUC rather than ALAC anyway -- are already well represented within ICANN through multiple constituencies. It was clear dereliction of duty of the 2003 ALAC -- and an even clearer reflection of its earlier, un-representative, unaccountable form -- that it did not aggressively advance and defend the interests of "data users". ALAC exists primarily -- perhaps exclusively -- to advance the interests of "data users" within ICANN. IMO, anyone here who does not believe that is probably in the wrong place. - Evan