+1 on all counts. Now looking forward to a debate over the ASCII art... ;-) On 7/8/10 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > +1 for a privacy policy. As to the question of this particular one, > I'm going to profess some level of ignorance. I suggested starting > from Google, Cisco, and/or ISOC's privacy policies and editing from > there, and someone said I should pick a more appropriate starting > point. What would be appropriate privacy policies to > compare/contrast? > > Personally, apart from references to ISOC-specific things, I thought > ISOC's privacy policy was relatively simple and covered the major > points. The draft is more detailed and more complete. The differences > may be a matter of taste: look at http://www.isoc.org/help/privacy/ > and ask yourself whether the provisions in "what do we collect" and > "what do we do with it" are reflected in the draft, and I think you > might agree that they are, with the draft being more explicit in > different areas. But I think that the ISOC rules, when considered in > an IETF light, are actually the same. We collect things that are > standardly collected, but we don't share them, and we do use them to > make our internal processes work better. > > If there are others to compare/contrast, to see if we have missed a > point or are stating for something not usually said, I'd be > interested to know. > > I would agree that this statement should be made by someone in I* > leadership, either the IESG, IAOC, or perhaps IAB, and that it > belongs on a web page as opposed to being in an RFC. > > I would suggest that a consensus be called for via a hum over VoIPv6. > But the web page should be in flat ASCII with no graphics other than > ASCII-art. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf