Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:36 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Good grief.
> 
> Indeed.  Do we agree that this means we're done?

I'm not opposed to the IETF having a privacy policy separate from ISOC's; I'm also not opposed to simply using ISOC's. Whatever we use, I think we should agree to it.

What I don't understand is the amount of arm wrestling that happens on this list. If I were to assert that the sky was blue, someone would want to know the frequency of the color, and someone else would report that the sky as s/he observed it was grey. The discussion would last for weeks, with the person who observed that it was grey periodically reporting a change in status.

I think we are done if we have agreed on a privacy policy. That could mean that we have agreed that there is no policy (and were willing to, as a result, stop screaming about the privacy implications of every little thing that cropped up; we have RFCs that have arisen from such rants), agreed to use ISOC's policy (see http://www.isoc.org/help/privacy/), have agreed to the one Alissa has proposed, or have agreed to something else. At this point, I'm not sure we agree on anything in particular.

I read Alissa's proposal. I might have a few nit points, and back when the thread was about that proposal I thought some others had interesting points. On the whole, it is a privacy policy I could subscribe to, and those points might improve it.