Re: [6gip] Side Meeting Closing Notes

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

In EU this falls under GDPR, which means that you need explicit consent from every participant in order to be allowed to record the meeting.
For people that registered to the IETF this explicit consent has been made through registration process, when the note well is explicitly accepted.
But, because side meeting are open to everyone than an explicit consent should be made by those participants that are not registered to the IETF.

Showing the Note well at the beginning of the side meeting is not enough, EU laws mandate an explicit act from the person accepting the note well.

That is the EU regulation …. In practice AFAICT everybody has always been fine fine recordings….

CIao
 
L.

> On 10 Mar 2021, at 16:22, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 10/03/2021 à 16:13, vojislav vucetic a écrit :
>> The following provides information how to record the meeting using WebEx:
>> https://help.webex.com/en-us/n62735y/Webex-Record-a-Meeting#id_134756 <https://help.webex.com/en-us/n62735y/Webex-Record-a-Meeting#id_134756>
>> If you can create the meeting, you can record it. Simple as that.
> 
> In some meetings organizers first ask for permission (or otherwise ask if someone opposes) that a recording is made.
> 
> For my part, some times I dont like myself in a video, but other times when I would like to look back over the years check whether I appear in some archive.  That's why I dont know what to answer when such question is made.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* 6gip <[e-mail]> on behalf of Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:02 AM
>> *To:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; d.lake=[e-mail] <d.lake=[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [6gip] Side Meeting Closing Notes
>> Would be great to always do recordings. Alas i had a conflict for the meeting slot, and listening to a recording is always better than reading notes.
>> Thanks
>>     toerless
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:57:07PM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> We did not arrange for a recording of the webex (which technically might have been possible but I personally never tried) but I did try to take some notes and will compile them to share on the list.
>>> Thanks!
>>> Best Regards
>>> Dirk -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> Sent: Mittwoch, 10. März 2021 13:29
>>> To: David Lake <d.lake=[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; von Hugo, Dirk <[e-mail]>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>; Lake, D <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [6gip] Side Meeting Closing Notes
>>> Was there a webex recording made of the side-meeting ? If so, it would be great if the URL was put into th side meeting wiki.
>>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 11:46:58PM +0000, David Lake wrote:
>>> > Behcet, Dirk,
>>> > > I don???t feel I can let this meeting go by without making a personal comment as to its effectiveness.   I???m afraid I will be direct but I hope respectful.
>>> > > Putting aside the manner in which one person was dealt with, I do not feel that the management of the meeting was conducive to making any progress and yet-again we are left with wondering what it is that 6GIP, and 5gangip before it are trying to achieve.
>>> > > In terms of both IETF and IRTF work, anything towards ???6G??? is premature ??? chartering a WG/RG in this space would be a recipe for disaster as they would not achieve anything as there is no clear question.
>>> > > That message was clear from the attendees on the call.
>>> > > From a ???Future Network??? perspective there is relevance but this has to be at a much higher level than IETF/IRTF can address.   At present, this is a strategic problem, not an engineering one.
>>> > > Many SDOs such as ITU, 3GPP, ETSI as well as the ISOC could have an input as to what future networking will look to achieve ??? portions of this could become pieces that IETF/IRTF will deliver but in my opinion that is many years away.
>>> > > Personally, I would also like to consider the economic model of service delivery ??? we are lacking a functioning supply chain and financial settlement system in today???s Internet and as we move to outcome-based applications running against SLAs, it will  be vital to consider how to economically deliver services and 
>> reconcile payments to operators and carriers.   This is not IETF, IRTF, IAB, 3GPP problem today but it could be ITU or ISOC or even business schools specialising in e-commerce supply chains.
>>> > > The protocols and interfaces will, in time, flow from this work and I am sure RGs and WGs will coalesce round the problem space as it becomes clear; you appear to be trying to drive the group to deliver a technical solution in a single WG today for something  that is simply not yet defined!
>>> > > We cannot continue like this.  I???m afraid for me the tone of the conversation and the quality of the chairmanship was simply not acceptable.  There was no space for meaningful discussion at 109 as the entire session was taken over by one presentation  due to poor time-management and the agenda and action items from 
>> today???s meeting were unclear, again with the promised discussion time not delivered.
>>> > > My proposal:
>>> > > >   *   We re-charter this group with the aim of understanding the ???Future Networking??? problem space, whatever ???G??? it gets called;
>>> >   *   We work to categorise and document all activities both technical and administrative (governmental, policy, economic, etc) in this space; a living literature review, if you will;
>>> >   *   We liaise with other SDOs and form a ???Community of Interest??? for all Future Networking topics;
>>> >   *   We work with ISOC and/or IAB to decide where best to place a group looking so far out into the future;
>>> >   *   As work-items appear, we look to charter RGs/WGs as appropriate within the IAB family but also with the ability to engage 3GPP/ETSI/ATIS/IEEE/ITU-T,R, etc.
>>> > > I propose that we start discussions around this with ISOC/IAB with a view to holding a Side Meeting at 111.  I look for guidance from the IETF Chair as to how and who we should engage in ISOC/IAB.
>>> > > I apologise if this seems overly critical but it is better that we make the required management changes now so that we can move forward and not waste more time at 111.
>>> > > Regards
>>> > > David
>>> > > From: 6gip <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
>>> > Sent: 09 March 2021 21:12
>>> > To: [e-mail]; <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>> > Subject: [6gip] Side Meeting Closing Notes
>>> > > Hi all,
>>> > > Our IETF 110 side meeting just concluded, many thanks to 30+ people who attended.
>>> > > Aim of the side meeting was to discuss topics which may become future work for IETF.
>>> > > We did not intend to provide any direction or exclude any unknown topics/questions.
>>> > > List of issues we provided were based on a single publicly available source (not ours) to give room for everybody to express their opinions including opposing to the points made.
>>> > > We thank everybody for contributing to the discussions.
>>> > There was no intention to offend anybody, we hereby apologize anybody who may have felt offended. We will try our best to do better next time.
>>> > > Thanks again folks.
>>> > > Dirk & Behcet
>>> > -- > 6gip mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip>
>> -- 
>> ---
>> [e-mail]
>> -- 
>> 6gip mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip>
> 
> -- 
> 6gip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip