Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 01:31 PM 4/23/2012, Michael StJohns wrote:
>At 01:26 PM 4/23/2012, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >On 04/23/2012 10:13 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
> >>>On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
> >>>>see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking part 
> in a WG's activities
> >>>>keeping track of attendees is a basic part of any standards 
> development organization's process
> >>>
> >>>The tension here appears to be between transparency of process and an
> >>>individual right to privacy.  I think that the IETF has a considerable
> >>>stake in the former, not just because of the frequency with which some
> >>>little pisher or other threatens to sue over what they perceive to be
> >>>trust/collusion issues, but because openness is an IETF institutional
> >>>value.  I think it should continue to be.  I understand the privacy
> >>>issues (although I won't necessary lump them as an instance of revealing
> >>>PII) but tend to think that the information being revealed is pretty
> >>>sparse and the privacy concerns here probably aren't substantial enough
> >>>to counterbalance the organizational interest in keeping processes as
> >>>open as possible.
> >>>
> >>>Melinda
> >>
> >>
> >>And to put a further point on it - the last sentence of the "NOTE 
> WELL" notice (http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) that 
> applies to each and every IETF meeting and working group session 
> and IETF activity is very clear that written, audio and video 
> records can and will be kept.  A person attending an IETF meeting 
> has no reasonable expectation of privacy for those things we define 
> as "IETF activities".
> >>
> >>So if someone demands "privacy", the price is non-participation 
> in the IETF.
> >
> >Not exactly -- the NOTE WELL applies to contributions.
> >Is just showing up and observing the meeting considered a contribution?
>
>The NOTE WELL implicates any "statements", oral, written or 
>electronic as well as "submissions".
>
>The last sentence of the NOTE WELL says "A participant in any IETF 
>activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of 
>meetings may be made and may be available to the public." - and that 
>puts paid to the concept that an attendee has a "privacy" 
>expectation during the meeting.

How can anyone have the expectations for privacy to a meeting they 
have already publicly signed up and paid for - likely with a credit 
card that can also be tracked. To then be concerned about individual 
meeting attendance tied to a certain room during a certain time 
*after the fact* (sometimes by weeks or more) is just silly, and a 
waste of time.

Scan the bluesheets, keep the email addresses for a better record of 
who is who at a certain meeting, destroy the blue sheets after the scan.

James


> >Personally, I don't think the blue sheets should even be filled out,
> >let alone published.  The WG chairs can convey the meeting room 
> size requirements
> >without passing around clipboards and (hopefully) everybody 
> writing down their name.
> >
> >There is no correlation between the blue sheets and IETF contributions.
> >I don't see what purpose they serve anymore.
>
>
>AFAIK, you're not a patent troll.  I have met them during IETF 
>meetings.  One of my RFC's was patented - without my knowledge or 
>consent.  (cf  RFC2786 vs US Patent No. 7290142)  Fortunately, the 
>record was clear that the RFC and the drafts preceded the applicants 
>"spark".  However, it might have been more interesting had there 
>been need to a) prove when the first public disclosure was made and 
>b) implicate a specific person, company or entity in being present 
>when that disclosure was made.  Hence the blue sheets.
>
>So they do serve a purpose.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
> >>Mike
> >>
> >
> >Andy