On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > On 10/05/12 16:35, John C Klensin wrote: > > But it seems to me that takes us back to Russ's summary in that > > it is normal, and arguably necessary, for a standards body to > > record --and make available to those who are interested-- the > > identities of those participating in meetings. > > I do not dispute that. > What I dispute is that "make available to those who are interested" > necessarily leads to the need to broadcast the data (i.e. publish in the > proceedings). > As we did in the past, we can equally achieve this openness by requiring that > an interested person requests this data (including then providing his own > identify) as we do at the moment. I object to the quantum change in ease of access and persistence of the information. I see way too much aggregation of personal information and don't think open-ness is justification for increasing that potential. One of the ways we deal with SPAM and DOS attacks is to intentionally slow the process. Ted's proposal would be vastly improved with the provision that access, once authenticated, was delayed approximately the same amount of time as the current manual process. Propably with some form of the failed login approach ... maximum requests per week or other similar unit of time. David Morris