On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an open organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a definition of how someone can become a member (members of RIPE are companies and pay a fee), and are considered open to that class of membership. But the IETF isn't a membership organization - isn't that at least in part what's meant by "open," and why at least in part we don't have voting (in theory)? > That is of course true. I think my comment stands. If the IETF is not the only organization in the world in which otherwise rational people expect to pay money for privileges, make material contributions that might change the world, and might have companies off suing each other over IPR, and none-the-less expect to remain absolutely anonymous, it is one of a very small number. I'm not a big fan of anonymity here, mostly because I don't know how consensus would work - in practice - with anonymous participants, as well as several of the issues you've identified. I don't think that "nobody else does it" is a good argument, unless what it actually means is "few companies will allow their employees to contribute to an organization with those kinds of policies," which is a very compelling argument. But I don't think privacy are that tightly coupled and I wonder what a privacy policy should say about that. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf