Alan Greenberg wrote:
Most have been silent which by our conventions implies support of the document.
If ALAC truly believes that the silent "support" of the document's vague goals is stronger than the voice of those who have spoken in favour of its taking a principled stand, it should be aware that its very relevance is at stake.
As John Levine pointed out, we may have to settle for other measures (supported by Izumi) and as Danny has clearly stated, we should not cop out and leave the policy development to others. If there is a chance that other mechanisms may be adopted, we should have input into them. Taking a strong initial stand never eliminates the ability to strategically compromise on temporary, partial solutions. I do believe that you have significant and diverse input that says clearly that the AGP is *WRONG* and against the public good. Half measures are acceptable but must be recognized as what they are -- expediently better than nothing but no replacement for the real thing.
Although there has been some very strong statements from NA, there has not been the same outcry from other regions and I will try to represent the entire picture. It's sadly revealing that the NARALO position is described as an 'outcry'.
If the ALAC disagrees, they will say so. Indeed. And there are many eyes on the direction it takes.
- Evan