On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am also not sure if a policy like this can be effectively implemented. I worry that some might see the "do-not-photograph” label as the opposite of what it is intended to mean.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but a number of other communities have implemented these policies and found they work well (by which I meant that people generally conform and it's not that hard to deal with people who don't). So, at this point I think general skepticism is a bit misplaced. Do you have some specific reason for believing that the IETF will be different?
I infer that some who asked for this see having their picture taken as a form harassment. Harassment is clearly unacceptable in the IETF, but if that is the case here, I think it would be better to deal directly with it as harassment. I believe we already have a policy relating to harassment.
I'm not sure I can add anything to what others have already said, but I'll try anyway. There are people who prefer not to be photographed but feel uncomfortable if they have to directly ask every person who might potentially photograph them not do so so. I think Alissa said this explicitly in her note. These aren't cases of harassment but of giving people who have that preference a way to signal that and establishing the norm that people will respect that preference. Now, if someone deliberately ignores others preferences, then at some point it might rise to the level of harassment, and as you say, we should deal with that directly, and that's a matter for the ombudsteam, which is what the policy says.
-Ekr
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> 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.
>
