Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
>On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
>>see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking part in a WG's activities
>>keeping track of attendees is a basic part of any standards development organization's process
>
>The tension here appears to be between transparency of process and an
>individual right to privacy.  I think that the IETF has a considerable
>stake in the former, not just because of the frequency with which some
>little pisher or other threatens to sue over what they perceive to be
>trust/collusion issues, but because openness is an IETF institutional
>value.  I think it should continue to be.  I understand the privacy
>issues (although I won't necessary lump them as an instance of revealing
>PII) but tend to think that the information being revealed is pretty
>sparse and the privacy concerns here probably aren't substantial enough
>to counterbalance the organizational interest in keeping processes as
>open as possible.
>
>Melinda


And to put a further point on it - the last sentence of the "NOTE WELL" notice (http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) that applies to each and every IETF meeting and working group session and IETF activity is very clear that written, audio and video records can and will be kept.  A person attending an IETF meeting has no reasonable expectation of privacy for those things we define as "IETF activities".

So if someone demands "privacy", the price is non-participation in the IETF.

Mike