On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:07 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Aaron, > At 11:40 19-06-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote: >> Relating to the statement above(I assume Phillip is addressing the US Academia), not quite sure are we still discussing the same topic? >> sorry, I am bit confused .. since IETF is an international organization. > > I changed the subject line as I am as confused as to whether the IETF is an international organization. > > There was a mention of "First the Civil Rights act, then Selma... ;)". I assume that the act is an Act for the United States of America. Harvard was also mentioned. I did a quick search and I found out that "Harvard University is an American private Ivy League research university". Dear SM, Are new ideas embraced without any prior geographic endorsement? While this seems to be the case, organizations with greater resources, often from various regions, will steer development. There be dragons empathizing about motivations to understand declared rules, stated justifications, or even what censuses really means. Even with the best of intentions, it is very difficult to have meaningful discussions about motivations . In respect to privacy, organizations both sell and purchase profile information containing individual preferences and contact information. There are also organizations that attempt offer selective relationships, often via a social network. In deciding what is important to protect, the identity of those initiating transactions, or those receiving them are at odds. Even a statement females are more sensitive about security than men in respect to technology in the home can be viewed as either a real insight or a sexist view. By having gender diversity, questioning the underlying motivations can be avoided. It seems the same can be said of those trading profiles or and those offering protection from profilers. Motivation plays a critical role in steering development. It is just not something easily discussed within an international organization. Regards, Douglas Otis