Re: Proposed IETF Privacy Policy for Review

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 16 March 2016 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
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 EB47212D6C8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6XQh1mBi3Lw1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A6CC12D5A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5628918DEA37; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XXLIvGcMj_h3; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.16] (173-166-5-69-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.69]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A018118DEA28; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Privacy Policy for Review
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160316173701.25701.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:08:16 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE878486-1E9E-46F3-8AE8-6D211E39D419@sobco.com>
References: <20160316173701.25701.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Qbq8hqmCPc-CTXEY2uzoHIAbx_o>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:08:19 -0000

IETF Secretariat
c/o Association Management Solutions, LLC (AMS)
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117
Fremont, California 94538

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:37 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>> but, even if we clearly say “we never do that” we still need to have the section since 
>> California law says that we need to have such an ability for people to ask  (its also the kind of thing that the EU
>> wants to see)
> 
> Why is California law relevant?  The IETF's legal bits are in Virgina
> or maybe D.C., not California.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
>