--On Monday, September 14, 2009 10:06 -0400 Donald Eastlake
<d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> I can back most of your statement and the things you do but
> that below is just absolutely absurd.
>
> The RFID badge thing originated in the >HOST< not in IASA. It
> is entirely within normal facilities arrangement and
> negotiation to use pre-existing badge arrangements,
> particularly where there is an easy opt out. An IETF meeting
> is not some computer cracker meeting trying to provide
> anonymity. However interesting the general case of various ID
> and information privacy arrangements may be, RFID or bar code
> or photo ID or color coded deely-bopper or whatever badges are
> perfectly reasonable as facilities provided by the HOST on a
> one time basis when it is easy to opt out.
>
> I request that you apologize to the long suffering volunteers
> that make the IETF meeting facilities work for your
> unwarranted abuse.
Donald,
There are, it seems to me, two rather separate issues here.
One is the general theme of whether the IASA is performing
according to the responsibilities and obligations of BCP 101 and
its own rules. Those are responsibilities, obligations, and
rules for which the IAD and members of the IAOC presumably
signed up. Now maybe much of the community doesn't care
whether they do those things or not. I don't think that
absolves the IASA from those responsibilities, but YMMD.
The second is what a sponsor gets to do when they decide to
sponsor an IETF meeting. Our policies on that subject have
evolved over the years. My recollection is that several
requests/suggestions to run exhibition halls in conjunction with
IETF meetings have been turned down. You and I can both
remember the time when sponsors had to ask secretariat
permission to set up a table near the registration area that
displayed a sponsor logo and were routinely told "no". But the
point is that these are policies and that having a sponsor give
out T-shirts or RFID badges are policy decisions too... policy
decisions that are made somewhere in the IASA structure, not
decisions a sponsor can make unilaterally unless sponsorship
agreements have changed dramatically (and in ways that should be
visible to the community).
Equally, it is a policy decision to make attendance lists (with
any details attached to them at all) available for sponsor use
and another one for the Secretariat to engage in any sort of
"matching" or "comparison to blue sheets" activities.
To repeat the comment I made in my note, I'm not personally
opposed to any of these things. I'm just concerned about how
the IASA is making the policy decisions and dealing with the
comments from the community to which they are supposed to be
responsive ... or abandoning those policy decisions to the
sponsor without any clear oversight. Judging from Ole's
comments, I think the IASA _is_ taking some responsibility here
--contrary to your apparent belief that this is entirely a
sponsor initiative. I am pleased that the IASA is doing so...
at the same time that I'm concerned about whether their
priorities are correct to spend time on this optional activity
given the required things that are not getting done.
However, let's assume that this really were a host decision
independent of the IASA and that our sponsorship agreements
permitted or encouraged such things. Then I'd expect the model
to be opt-in, not opt-out, I'd expect the database of user names
(or other identifiers) and badge numbers to be kept isolated
from secretariat databases, and I'd expect the responses about
the handling of the content of those databases to be coming from
the sponsor, not members of the IAOC. YMMD about that, but, as
soon as the secretariat is involved and/or things are going into
the envelopes, there is an IASA policy decision involved, not an
independent host action.
So, sorry, no apology here.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf