IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Publishing list of non-paying IETF attendees, was Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Sun, 14 November 2010 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFD63A6B6A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:08:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h0hXnnRr3aZ2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF7C3A6AAB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-CheckPoint: {4CDFB232-1-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAEA8UTS002470; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:08:30 +0200
Received: from il-ex03.ad.checkpoint.com (194.29.34.71) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (194.29.34.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:08:30 +0200
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex03.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.71]) with mapi; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:08:30 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:08:29 +0200
Subject: Re: Publishing list of non-paying IETF attendees, was Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
Thread-Topic: Publishing list of non-paying IETF attendees, was Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
Thread-Index: AcuD4+M5I2JMF5fXSEe5Uf4V56JqFg==
Message-ID: <0A4F6C7C-0564-4C20-9360-7B2A505825BB@checkpoint.com>
References: <C902F371.23A288%jordi.palet@consulintel.es> <2C6CC15A-EFCC-4E0B-B4A7-A1C4BD48416B@checkpoint.com> <1289563433.5333.21.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <6.2.5.6.2.20101113221018.0ba26388@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20101113221018.0ba26388@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:08:00 -0000

On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:06 AM, SM wrote:

> At 04:03 12-11-10, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> It is sometimes possible to create systems to meet the needs of privacy
>> and oversight - for example a closed review board - but I think just
>> publishing a list of who gets free access to each IETF is probably good
>> a good idea.
> 
> There is already an IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (see BCP 
> 101).  Approximately 2% of attendees received complementary tickets

How many of those are volunteers/host/NOC/future host, and how many are "discretionary comp"?

Does the IAOC have access to the actual list of names?  If so, I think that's good enough, because the corruption that we're trying to solve would require collaboration between the IETF chair and the IAOC. I would say that the risk is low enough that privacy trumps transparency.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email