I guess in principle (or in theory, if you'd prefer) i would be tempted 
to say that privacy trumps the pragmatics of efficient network 
maintenance, but i'm not so sure that I get the whole technical 
challenge of actually keeping the stuff working ... so....

If i may venture a question, at the risk of exposing my ignorance: what 
if something needs be dealt with and you can't reach a responsible 
person. In the end, depending on the gravity of the situation of course, 
won't the unreachable party be the one ultimately penalized by the 
stabilizing actions of network operators? And if so, and granted that 
anonymity does indeed put pressure on network operators, isn't the 
balance achieved one where network operators have a hard(er) job but 
where anonymous registrants mostly support the risk of potentially 
drastic actions by network operators striving to keep things going?

Because frankly whois rules cannot be made to easily protect every 
person protected by a restraining order, that would be overreaching, in 
my opinion. Privacy, in a twisted but important sense, give us a "right" 
to misbehave in my opinion. It's what gives value to good behavior. Any 
system that makes it practically impossible to misbehave (think cars 
with built-in police radars) sap the value of good behavior right out of 
life. I believe this argument was made often ― whether from a moral, 
legal, political or economical point of view ― under the rubric of 
"liberty".

Tentatively,

Nicolas

On 7/21/2011 8:17 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
> Although I support most of the proposed comments, I disagree with
> recommendation 14.