Hi Avri, You make valid points. However, I assume that a company system administrator has nothing to do with the IETF. In this case, as far as I know, the tools team is not bound by all the rules of NomCom. For instance, the tools team members are potential candidates for nomination, aren't they? May be there are expected to abide by the confidentiality rules, but the restriction of not being eligible for nominations certainly does not apply as far as I know. So, being active participants in the IETF community and being eligible candidates for nominations provides a significantly different landscape from a network administrator who does not have a clue about the IETF. Regards, Vidya > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:41 PM > To: IETF-Discussion > Subject: Re: nomcom and confidentiality > > Hi, > > To add a tidbit. There has long been a notion of an umbrella > of confidentiality in Nomcom. Which means that anyone who > has, or is given access, to any of the confidential > information has to agree to keep the information > confidential. While I have paid very little attention t > nomcom over the last few years, I assume this idea is still relevant. > > I agree with Harald that there is this common assumption of > trust given to system administrators. And in fact when as a > Nomcom chair, i kept info on my system, there was always the > possibility that a company system administrator could see the > info and do something with it. I assume the same is true of > every nomcom members who receives the email on a work owned > computer. I would assume that in addition it being implicit > that the tools team folks be trusted to treat things > confidentially, that it be explicit that members of the tool > team and other administrators of the systems agree to keep > nomcom information confidential. I am not looking for an > NDA, but perhaps an explicit statement might be useful in > assuring people. > > a. > > > > On 7 nov 2006, at 05.37, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > > I think some of Laksminath's concern is valid. > > But I think the solution to the problem is simple: > > > > Make it publicly known who is on the technical staff that > supports the > > Nomcom, and make it clear that these people: > > > > 1) May learn Nomcom information as a side effect of their technical > > work to support Nomcom > > 2) Have promised not to reveal that information to others, and have > > promised not to take any other action based on that > information (apart > > from fixing technical problems) > > > > This is analogous to the role of an email postmaster: He *can* read > > any mail on the system, if he really wants to, but we trust > him to not > > *do* it - or, if he has to during debugging, we trust him > to "forget" > > what he's read. > > > > I trust that Henrik thought this was "so obvious it didn't need > > mentioning". > > > > Harald > > > > > > --On 7. november 2006 00:39 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti > > <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Fred, > >> > >> When I saw a non-nomcom member having access to what I thought was > >> nomcom-confidential, I was very concerned and now doubt the entire > >> process. I was told that it is secure, but it has not > been verified > >> as far as I can tell. At this point, no offense to the > tools team, I > >> remain unconvinced. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf