Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 7/21/2010 3:33 PM, John Levine wrote:
You appear to be concerned about exposing the IETF to risk by the
adoption of a privacy policy (but apologies if I am misunderstanding
the concern you expressed).  The absence of a privacy policy, however,
actually increases risk to the IETF in at least three ways:

  ... none of which applies since

a) the IETF has no formal legal existence

With creation of the IETF Trust, that is no longer true. There also have been comments from one or another attorney that the absence of formal legal formation is not the same as no "formal" legal existence. All of which at least suggests, once again, that we ought to leave legal pronouncements to attorneys (and even then, seek a second opinion.)


b) the IETF has no employees

Well, again, there's a formal correctness to that statement and a practical incorrectness.


c) the IETF signs no contracts

I was under the impression that the IAOC now signs the event contracts. But perhaps that's not correct.


It would be helpful for someone, anyone, to explain in terms specific
to the IETF what a privacy policy will accomplish.

Ahh, well.  That's a good idea, not matter your earlier assertions.


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]