Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

My memory of partnership law is that if an agreement has the form of a
partnership it is a partnership regardless of claims in the contract
document explicitly stating it is not. It does not seem very likely
that the courts would take a different line with respect to
organizations that claim not to be organizations.

There may be some ambiguity as to what the status of the IETF is, but
that does not help.

Exceptionalism really does not work very well as a legal strategy.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:33 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> 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
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/