It is largely unchanged with the exception of "require" being changed back to "request" and an explanatory paragraph at the end. This was done after consultation to ensure that we were not perceived as not understanding Board restrictions and to not give an "easy" way of rejected the advice ("we don't have that power").
Sigh. We really haven't learned anything, even after decades of experience.
The Board will reject ALAC advice that doesn't align with what it's going to do anyway, as it always does and has done. Why do we care if their rejection is really easy or slightly less easy?
Do the consequences change whether the answer is "cannot" rather than "will not"?
Since we're anticipating responses .... if we said "require" and the Board truly agreed with our sentiment, it could respond "we're not able to demand it but we'll do what we can to ensure this important issue is addressed". Instead, we've toned down the statement before it even gets to that point.
Do we feel strongly that Thick WHOIS is addressed (you must do this in the interest of our constituency) or not (pretty please, we'll go away silently if you say no and forget we even asked)?
Maybe the problem is mine alone. I should stop being surprised at ALAC's capacity for self-debasement.
- Evan