Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC

I just want to submit a draft to make the world a little better. I did 
this individually without an employer in the background and on my own. I 
just followed the already existing RFC from Sally, I even wrote to her 
(unfortunately the email came back). I don't have to have my name all 
over the internet and I don't want to. I also could have done a better 
job of disguising the fact that it's not my real name. The IETF can 
hardly control this at all.
I could take a very common name and maybe many have already done that. 
Just from the individual email I know that IETF has very poor spam 
protection and for that reason alone you end up in a lot of spam lists 
and very quickly. I only want to establish a new webiquette as I see a 
lot of issues at in the internet at the moment.

On 17.04.22 21:14, Christian Huitema wrote:
> This submission raises an interesting question for the IETF: how to 
> treat anonymous (or pseudonymous) submissions?
>
> On one hand, there are lots of classic reasons for hiding behind a 
> pseudonym when participating in public discussions. On the other hand, 
> the IETF has to be protected against intellectual property issues and 
> against sabotage by external groups.
>
> Before submissions are accepted for publication, their authors have to 
> disclose whether they, or their employer, own intellectual property 
> rights on the technologies described in the draft. Failure to disclose 
> would influence the prosecution of intellectual property disputes that 
> might arise when third parties implement the technology. This provides 
> some degree of protection to implementers. But when the submission 
> cannot be traced to a specific company, these protections disappear, 
> and we might have a problem. So this is one source of tension between 
> standards and anonymity.
>
> The other source of tension is the risk of sabotage. Various groups 
> have tried to sabotage the standard process in the past, for example 
> to delay the deployment of encryption, or to introduce exploitable 
> bugs in security standards -- some of these tactics were exposed in 
> the Snowden revelations. Anonymous participation could allow these 
> groups to perform such sabotage in untraceable ways, which is 
> obviously not desirable.
>
> I think this issue of anonymous participation is worth discussing.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
> On 4/17/2022 11:35 AM, kate_9023+rfc@systemli.org wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm quite new at creating RFCs. I have recently submitted a draft for 
>> a new webiquette and I am still searching a group which will take 
>> care of it. It would fit into privacy as this new webiquette is 
>> dealing with new internet technology such as deepfakes, sharing 
>> photos of 3rd parties and so on and also deleting old information on 
>> a regular basis good behavior. It's also quite short with only 9 
>> pages and also covers cancel culture and mobbing. I think a document 
>> like this is needed and important. Anyone here who'd like to take 
>> care or helping me making an RFC out of it? Or guide me in the right 
>> direction?
>>
>> The draft can be found here: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rfcxml-general-the-new-webiquette-00.txt
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Kate
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ietf-privacy mailing list
>> ietf-privacy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-privacy mailing list
> ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy