At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote: >On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote: >>see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking part in a WG's activities >>keeping track of attendees is a basic part of any standards development organization's process > >The tension here appears to be between transparency of process and an >individual right to privacy. I think that the IETF has a considerable >stake in the former, not just because of the frequency with which some >little pisher or other threatens to sue over what they perceive to be >trust/collusion issues, but because openness is an IETF institutional >value. I think it should continue to be. I understand the privacy >issues (although I won't necessary lump them as an instance of revealing >PII) but tend to think that the information being revealed is pretty >sparse and the privacy concerns here probably aren't substantial enough >to counterbalance the organizational interest in keeping processes as >open as possible. > >Melinda And to put a further point on it - the last sentence of the "NOTE WELL" notice (http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) that applies to each and every IETF meeting and working group session and IETF activity is very clear that written, audio and video records can and will be kept. A person attending an IETF meeting has no reasonable expectation of privacy for those things we define as "IETF activities". So if someone demands "privacy", the price is non-participation in the IETF. Mike