Danny Younger wrote:
What would be helpful would be a new initiative, a new proposal, that balances the need for protection with a modicum of respect for privacy.
Finally, an opening position that reflects common sense and the needs of At-Large ... a far cry from a blanket and vague motherhood demands such as "privacy should be a core value".
If we can come to a consensus within the at-large (that clearly holds a number of opposing viewpoints), then there is likely a reasonable chance that such a consensus could carry through to the other stakeholder communities.
I don't think the viewpoints are really that divergent, and I am optimistic that a balanced position -- not a compromise -- is possible, so long as we avoid hyperbole. I can respect and value privacy so long as it is put in a context of the need for responsibility on the part of sources of Internet content.
I'm willing to consider a new effort that could be managed on the At-Large WHOIS WG list. But I'd feel better about moving forward in this direction if we could get some input/cooperation from the actual ALAC members (that for some reason don't seem to be in the participatory habit lately).
That need not be the case. ALAC is but an executive committee, so to speak. It is not At-Large. Policy initiatives certainly need not wait for ALAC or even RALO initiative. That's what "grassroots" is supposed to be all about. In any case, you're obviously welcome to raise this at the lavel of your local RALO, where people are obviously listening. - Evan