Re: IETF privacy policy - update

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,
At 09:05 05-07-10, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a public-facing
>IETF privacy policy 
>(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt ). I've 
>submitted an update based on feedback received: 
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-01.txt
>
>In discussing the policy with the IAOC and others, it seems clear that
>the RFC model is probably not the best model for maintaining and
>updating a document like this. It is more likely to fall within the
>scope of the IAOC and/or the Trust. In order for the IAOC to consider
>taking this on and devoting resources to figuring out what its format
>should be, they need to hear from the community that a public-facing
>privacy policy is something that the community wants. So I have two
>requests for those with any interest in this:

A BCP represents community consensus.  I don't see how using the RFC 
publication is not the best model for maintaining and updating a document.

According to BCP 101:

   "The IETF undertakes its technical activities as an ongoing, open,
    consensus-based process."

   "The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the
    administrative structure required to support the IETF standards
    process and to support the IETF's technical activities."

   "The IAOC determines what IETF administrative functions are to be
    performed, and how or where they should be performed (whether
    internally within the IASA or by outside organizations), so as to
    maintain an optimal balance of functional performance and cost of
    each such function.  The IAOC should document all such decisions, and
    the justification for them, for review by the community."

I doubt that it is up to the IAOC to determine whether there is 
consensus on a privacy policy as it is a policy and not an 
administrative matter.

According to BCP 78:

   "The IETF Trust was recently formed to act as the administrative
    custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights
    relating to the IETF Standards Process that had previously been held
    by ISOC and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI)"

If you want community support, ask for the I-D to be published as a 
RFC by putting in a request to the IETF Chair.

Regards,
-sm