Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

The IETF has a legal home, named ISOC. Let me rephrase: "Do you think ISOC is not subject to the laws of Europe?"

Good grief. 

On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:33 AM, John Levine wrote:

>> You appear to be concerned about exposing the IETF to risk by the  
>> adoption of a privacy policy (but apologies if I am misunderstanding  
>> the concern you expressed).  The absence of a privacy policy, however,  
>> actually increases risk to the IETF in at least three ways:
> 
> ... none of which applies since 
> 
> a) the IETF has no formal legal existence
> b) the IETF has no employees
> c) the IETF signs no contracts
> 
> It would be helpful for someone, anyone, to explain in terms specific
> to the IETF what a privacy policy will accomplish.  Please be sure to
> make no references whatsoever to any other organization, since none of
> them are (un)organized like the IETF is.  While you're at it, be sure
> not to use the word "obvious" or its synonyms.
> 
> I could be persuaded that there is a reason to have a privacy policy,
> but everything I've seen so far has been a combination of faulty
> analogies and mistaken premises.
> 
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF