On 7/12/2010 2:52 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 7/12/10 2:34 PM, Martin Rex wrote: >> todd glassey wrote: >>> Martin Rex wrote: >>>> Some people seem to hope that creation of a "privacy policy" is going >>>> to improve things. Personally, I don't think so. >>> >>> You mean that you think change that will protect the disclosure of >>> identities and proper notice as to who people represent is a bad thing? >> >> If there is no written privacy policy, then one has to make assumption >> about the consent on the use of PII. And if the assumption is >> conservative (as I think it has been in the IETF), then it is going >> to be in the interest of the data subject, and if unclear, one >> should resort to ask the data subject (= opt-in). > > have we all read the note well? > > http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html > > Your ietf contribution will be made public. > > It was accepted by everyone who registered for the meeting. Only if a NOTEWELL commentary was publicly posted at the meeting and notice was given at the time the person registered. > > "All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC > 3979 (updated by RFC 4879)." > > etc. > > While it is technically possible to attend an IETF meeting without > making a contribution what exactly is the point in doing so? you can > save a few thousand dollars by staying home and listening to the > recordings. That brings up another issue of whether the requirements to attend prevent those without the wherewithall to travel to be member's of the IETF right? _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf