Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Mon, 18 June 2012 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <chair@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEF921F86DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vpWnoWP-XN4u for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F290E21F86D5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE67A12BF0F; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6Cs3+Qs2Bqq; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.110] (pool-96-255-37-161.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.37.161]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7779012BBAC; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <F9874821-601D-4655-AB91-C648AC10E49D@standardstrack.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:25:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E80B3213-396E-4092-936B-367C4EB305C8@ietf.org>
References: <97BB17A56A65B20E9FB38128@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <360B33DF-0603-4B86-B488-DDDBEDF2B10B@bbn.com> <64D096E2-78E1-4B4F-B227-42AB7B658FF6@cs.columbia.edu> <BE62B481-1FBD-4F82-92BA-EAC0D0519639@ietf.org> <D21AF73E-AC26-4ED7-9A85-2F4B6246E238@ietf.org> <F9874821-601D-4655-AB91-C648AC10E49D@standardstrack.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger-l@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:25:22 -0000

Some SDOs have gone to great lengths to specify this in detail.  I am hoping that we can avoid that path.  Instead, as Ed already pointed out, each person already provides an organizational affiliation when they register.  Consistency would be helpful.

Russ


On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Eric Burger wrote:

> Do we have guidelines as to what is an "organization affiliation"?
> 
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:26 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
> 
>> Two things have occurred since the message below as sent to the IETF mail list.  First, we got a lawyer in Europe to do some investigation, and the inclusion of the email address on the blue sheet will lead to trouble with the European privacy laws.  Second, Ted Hardie suggested that we could require a password to access the scanned blue sheet.
>> 
>> Based on the European privacy law information, the use of email will result in a major burden.  If the email address is used, then we must provide a way for people to ask for their email address to be remove at any time in the future, even if we got prior approval to include it.  Therefore, I suggest that we collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same name instead of email address.
>> 
>> Based on Ted's suggestion, I checked with the Secretariat about using a datatracker login to download the scanned blue sheet.  This is fairly easy to do, once the community tracking tools are deployed.  However, with the removal of the email addresses from the blue sheets, it is unclear that there is any further need for password protection of these images.  Therefore, I suggest that we proceed without password protection for the blue sheet images.
>> 
>> Here is a summary of the suggested way forward:
>> 
>> - Stop collecting email addresses on blue sheets;
>> 
>> - Collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same name;
>> 
>> - Scan the blue sheets and include the images in the proceedings for the WG session;
>> 
>> - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and
>> 
>> - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>> On May 6, 2012, at 12:46 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
>> 
>>> We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough on this topic.  The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions:
>>> 
>>> (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information.
>>> 
>>> (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to distinguish participants with the same or similar names.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows:
>>> 
>>> - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets;
>>> 
>>> - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG session;
>>> 
>>> - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and
>>> 
>>> - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On behalf of the IESG,
>>> Russ
>>> 
>> 
>