On 9/5/12 1:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
I support this statement, with the additions suggested by Sam Hartman, John Klensin, and (most importantly) Brian Carpenter. In addition, I would suggest adding clarifying text to the extent that I-Ds will remain to be stored in non publicly accessible form, unless removal is required by a court order.
I must say, I find this a very strange thing to say. The original statement was "we will not remove anything from the archive unless ordered to by duly authorized court". Sam, John, Brian, and others have basically said, "No, we do not want that to be the policy. We want the IESG to give itself latitude to remove things from the archive for all sorts of other reasons." These aren't "additions"; they are a complete reversal of what we originally proposed. (Which, BTW, is fine. That's why we put these things out for review.) So either you do *not* support the statement and prefer the kinds of things that Sam, John, Brian, and others have suggested, or you *do* support the statement and do *not* support these other positions.
Speaking strictly for myself, I've found this conversation extremely helpful. The IESG's initial thought on this matter was that the bar for removing things from the archive ought to be set as high as we could get it so as to avoid all sorts of silly requests and DoS attacks (and, at least in my mind, so that the legal questions were near nil: unless an appropriate court forced us to, our policy was "leave it in there"). All of the exceptions that people are now suggesting are very interesting, but also bring up lots of legal questions. I'm not sure I like the idea of making my job harder, but I guess that's why you pay us the big bucks.
pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102