+1, adding that constraints on professional photography often do and need to extend to those attending, not just those under direct contact (eg the press). Joe > On Mar 2, 2018, at 2:12 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Friday, March 2, 2018 11:16 -0700 Joe Hildebrand > <hildjj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Great point. Didn't think of the ombudsman when i asked about >>> the current collection of complaints to justify the need for >>> a written policy. Maybe one of them will chime in and >>> enlighten us. >> >> It may be that they can do that within the bounds of their >> ethical guidelines. In case they can't, let me speak a little >> bit about the complaints that I have received in my time on >> the IAB -- not because this was an IAB issue, or because I was >> the right person to talk to necessarily, but because I >> happened to be in the right place at the right time wearing a >> dot. I am NOT speaking on behalf of the IAB here, just for >> myself. >> >> Several people feel *physically* intimidated by having a >> camera shoved in their face repeatedly, then having pictures >> of them posted through unofficial channels. Where it is clear >> that particular sorts of people figure prominently in those >> channels. > > Joe, > > FWIW, I would (and do) consider having a camera (especially one > with a flash) shoved in my face repeatedly (with emphasis on > "repeatedly") as a pattern of harassment whether I find it > physically intimidating or not and whether I follow through on > the temptation to punch the photographer out or not. Perhaps it > is not even relevant that it is camera: having someone shove > another object in my face (especially repeatedly) unwelcome too. > So, if that is the problem we are trying to solve, then what is > needed is a short clarification to the anti-harassment policy > that says that, yes, shoving things, e.g., cameras, in people's > faces is rude if done once (and we discourage "rude") and > harassment if done repeatedly. A lengthy new policy is not > needed. > > Interestingly, the "camera in face" argument has another > corollary. If someone really does not want to be photographed > and the IETF wants to support that desire, then having a picture > taken unobtrusively (e.g., no flash, from a distance, and with a > high-magnification lens) so that the subject doesn't find about > about the photo at the time it is taken, is fully as obnoxious > as taking the photo with the camera in someone's face. Then we > face a question that the policy doesn't seem to address, which > is whether the possibly-offensive act is taking the photograph > or about how it is used or where it is posted. > >> Those people don't feel empowered to speak up because they >> fear this EXACT conversation. They expect that they will be >> told that they should toughen up, that things have always been >> this way, that they shouldn't feel the way they feel. They >> feel like their business opportunities will dry up if they >> talk about how scared they are. They are unwilling to >> participate more at the IETF because of these concerns. > > It is interesting that you have been told that, because I think > I've read the entire thread so far and did not hear the "toughen > up" argument prior to your posting. However, if the above is > the issue, then asking those people who are significantly > uncomfortable to single themselves out and invite others to > speculate on why they have a problem is itself undesirable and, > as others have suggested, we should have a default "no pictures" > policy and an opt-in policy or equivalent as Adrian and others > have suggested. > >> Those of us who don't have those concerns because we're not >> the target of physical intimidation, feel empowered to fight >> back against it, and don't mind the consequences of people >> that are highly-placed in the industry thinking of as whiners >> should take a breath and think about our responsibility to the >> future. > >> Ask yourself if you're arguing on the pro-intimidation side, >> please? > > See Mike St. Johns's note, which is far more eloquent about that > sort of question than I can manage. > > I'm arguing something else, some of which are definitely less > pro-intimidation than this proposed policy, as written, seems to > be. > > (1) The more process-bound and rule-complex we make the IETF, > the more difficult it becomes for us to work together as > colleagues with a common focus on making the Internet work > better. In addition, I've been told that it has been getting > harder to get a wide range of organizations to support IETF > participation by their employees. To the extent to which that > is true, giving corporate legal departments reason for concern > that there are too many rules that cannot be easily and clearly > followed in interpreted is just not a good idea. > > (2) In part because it sets industry standards that influence > the marketplace, the IETF has some very strong obligations about > openness and transparency, obligations that need to be balanced > against the desire of individuals to not be identified (whether > by lists of attendees, pictures, or otherwise). > > (3) Personally, I don't like being photographed and have not for > a rather long time. I'd happily grab a sign, hat, badge, or > banner that said so. Whether I had some specific problems in > the past or whether this is just a matter of taste is, quite > frankly, not any of the IETF's business. So I actually support > a photography policy that allows me to restrict pictures; I just > think this one is misguided. > > (4) It seems to me that there are actually two separate issues > here. One has to do with the behavior of "official" > photographers engaged to documenting the IETF, the other with > behavior of individual participants or hangers-on. If a policy > is needed for the first group, I suggest it should be a > contractual matter between the photographer and the IASA even > though the community should be allowed to review and provide > into into that policy. If that IESG needs to be involved other > than providing into to IASA about such a policy, I think it is a > problem in and over itself. I also suggest that the first > step in developing such a policy is an explanation from the IAOC > to the community about why such photographers are needed at all > and why they are worth the costs -- not just of paying them, but > of sorting out policies if their actions cause controversies. > > (5) As others have suggested, what is needed for the rest of us > taking pictures of each other is probably more guidance and > education, not more policies, especially ones that we know > cannot be enforced (at least in isolation). The observations > above about harassment are relevant to this. > > john >
