Re: Comments on <draft-cooper-privacy-policy-01.txt>

[todd glassey <[e-mail]>]

 On 7/12/2010 2:52 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 7/12/10 2:34 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> todd glassey wrote:
>>> Martin Rex wrote:
>>>> Some people seem to hope that creation of a "privacy policy" is going
>>>> to improve things.  Personally, I don't think so.
>>>
>>> You mean that you think change that will protect the disclosure of
>>> identities and proper notice as to who people represent is a bad thing?
>>
>> If there is no written privacy policy, then one has to make assumption
>> about the consent on the use of PII.  And if the assumption is
>> conservative (as I think it has been in the IETF), then it is going
>> to be in the interest of the data subject, and if unclear, one
>> should resort to ask the data subject (= opt-in).
>
> have we all read the note well?
>
> http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
>
>     Your ietf contribution will be made public.
>
>     It was accepted by everyone who registered for the meeting.

Only if a NOTEWELL commentary was publicly posted at the meeting and
notice was given at the time the person registered.

>
> "All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC
> 3979 (updated by RFC 4879)."
>
> etc.
>
> While it is technically possible to attend an IETF meeting without
> making a contribution what exactly is the point in doing so? you can
> save a few thousand dollars by staying home and listening to the
> recordings.

That brings up another issue of whether the requirements to attend
prevent those without the wherewithall to travel to be member's of the
IETF right?