Re: IETF privacy policy - update

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

Marshall,

On 7/5/2010 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I assume (for I do not know) that people are worried about time involved in
> bringing a new RFC to publication.

The IESG often states that it is not difficult to bring an RFC to publication.

In any event, what makes this document more urgent, and in need of less scrutiny 
and processing, that any other potential RFC?

Personally, I would expect a document that attends to explicitly and complexly 
legal concerns to need /more/ scrutiny than an entry-level technical 
specification, not less.


> I don't see why this couldn't be divided in the way that the Trust Legal
> Provisions have been :
>
> - a RFC to set the _goals_ and basic framework of the privacy policy, which
> might change something like every 5 years (or less often if we are lucky) and

You expect the privacy policy, itself, to change more frequently than this?

Also, the implication of your suggestion is that we would have a goals and 
framework document /after/ we have actual policies. This seems a bit, ummmm, 
backward.  It would make more sense to have the two in one document, absent some 
expectation of one being more stable than the other.


> - an IAOC document for the actual privacy policy itself, which could be changed
> very quickly if (say) lawyers started beating down the doors.

if?  so we really don't have an urgent requirement?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net