I've always found that term in that context highly presumptuous and slightly offensive. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > edj.etc@xxxxxxxxx > Sent: 15 June 2012 22:43 > To: Eric Burger; ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx; IETF Chair > Cc: IETF > Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets > > I presume it is the same data that people input into the "Organization" field when > they register for the meeting. > > Regards, > > Ed J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Burger <eburger-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sender: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:37:50 > To: IETF Chair<chair@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: IETF<ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets > > Do we have guidelines as to what is an "organization affiliation"? > > On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:26 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > > > Two things have occurred since the message below as sent to the IETF mail list. > First, we got a lawyer in Europe to do some investigation, and the inclusion of the > email address on the blue sheet will lead to trouble with the European privacy > laws. Second, Ted Hardie suggested that we could require a password to access > the scanned blue sheet. > > > > Based on the European privacy law information, the use of email will result in a > major burden. If the email address is used, then we must provide a way for > people to ask for their email address to be remove at any time in the future, > even if we got prior approval to include it. Therefore, I suggest that we collect > organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same > name instead of email address. > > > > Based on Ted's suggestion, I checked with the Secretariat about using a > datatracker login to download the scanned blue sheet. This is fairly easy to do, > once the community tracking tools are deployed. However, with the removal of > the email addresses from the blue sheets, it is unclear that there is any further > need for password protection of these images. Therefore, I suggest that we > proceed without password protection for the blue sheet images. > > > > Here is a summary of the suggested way forward: > > > > - Stop collecting email addresses on blue sheets; > > > > - Collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with > the same name; > > > > - Scan the blue sheets and include the images in the proceedings for the WG > session; > > > > - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the > proceedings; and > > > > - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. > > > > Russ > > > > > > On May 6, 2012, at 12:46 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > > > >> We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite > rough on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions: > >> > >> (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more > important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information. > >> > >> (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to distinguish > participants with the same or similar names. > >> > >> > >> Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows: > >> > >> - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets; > >> > >> - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG > session; > >> > >> - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the > proceedings; and > >> > >> - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. > >> > >> > >> On behalf of the IESG, > >> Russ > >> > >