Whoa!
Was there any rough consensus call about this ?
Any legal liabilities that forced the IETF to define such policy ?
I think this is such a complex matter that it would be best for the
IETF to not have a policy unless either one of the two above was done.
And i would have certainly opted for DO NOT MAKE A POLICY FOR THIS.
There likely is already enough laws in each country that cover this and
just the tought of figuring out what the intersection of IETF and country
laws & policies means for both the participants and the IETF is something
i don't think the IETF should even want to think about. And even trying
to ignore that problem, the rules described leave a lot of room for
interpretation. Whats a large group, a small group, if the face can not be
identified, or photographer can't see the "don't photograph" label, does that
mean photography is permitted, etc. pp
Also: why did we not have such a policy for 35 years but need it now ?
I have not seen any increase in photograpy, so i can only think of an
increase in sensitivities or willingness of IETF leadership to react
to them.
Even when helicopter parents try to create safe spaces,
they don't need to write down every randomn problem as a policy but can
resolve the less common ones with simple direct action. How many
times has someone from IESG or someone else who can represent the
conference directly spoken to a photographer on behalf of someone who
had concerns about photography ? I can not remember a lot of email
threads about this either. In the absence of proof that such more
on-demand responses where tried and don't scale, i think this would
just be overregulation.
Personally: I primarily like to photograph the demos at bits&bytes.
With this policy, i would stop going to examine/look at the demos at
Bits & Bytes but only eat the food because nothing annoys me more than
a good demo i wanted to get back to later but no tracking (via the photo)
what it was about. Hope the sponsors will continue to pay for that
food even when everybody thinks like me and starts ignoring the booths
they paid for. Of course i ask ask folks in the booth if i can take a photo
anyhow, but with an official policy like this it just becomes overwhelmingly
complex because now i need to worry about the folks looking close to the
booth too. So, if any sponsors of bits & bytes are trackng this thread,
i would strongly suggest to have you only pay money for bits & bytes if
there are no policies that reduce the value of your booths. This policy
would reduce the value of booths IMHO.
Well, at least some severely needed break writing rfcs to the 5th ;-)
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:01:35PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The IESG has heard some concerns from participants that they would like
> not to be photographed. In response to those concerns, we have developed
> the attached policy which we intend to put in place going forward.
>
> Please send any comments by 3/8/2018.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> -----
> The intent behind this policy is to balance people's legitimate desire
> not to be photographed with the IETF's ability to document activities
> and enable remote participation. In order to enable that, we are
> proposing the following policy which applies to all IETF events,
> including WG meetings, plenaries, and the hackathon.
>
> LABELLING
> The IETF will make available a mechanism for participants to label
> themselves as desiring not to be photographed. The secretariat will
> determine the details in consultation with the IESG.
>
> OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
> Any photographer engaged on behalf of the IETF should not photograph
> individuals
> displaying the "do-not-photograph" label, should make reasonable
> efforts to avoid photographing small groups with one or more members
> displaying the label, and should not publish small group photographs
> with such individuals in them. Photographs of large groups may contain
> incidental images of such individuals and we will not attempt to
> redact those. Specifically, photographs of panels and the like (e.g.,
> the IESG/IAB plenary) are expected to contain all individuals
> regardless of labelling.
>
> Working group meetings are generally video recorded and broadcast, and
> no attempt will be made to avoid recording individuals. However, if
> the IETF publishes still frames of these videos, individuals
> displaying the labels should not be shown.
>
> Note: the use of "should" above is intended to reflect that although
> this is IETF policy, it is a best effort service and some mistakes
> will likely be made, perhaps because someone's label is not noticed or
> visible. Individuals can contact XXX to arrange for redaction of their
> images, or YYY to report abuse.
>
>
> UNOFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
> Many IETF participants also engage in photography. We ask that those
> participants respect the above policies and avoid photographing
> individuals who have asked not to be photographed. Although we
> recognize that mistakes will be made, repeated intentional violations
> of this policy may constitute harassment and could be brought to the
> attention
> of the ombudsteam, per RFC 7776.
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
