Re: Proposed Photography Policy

Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx> · Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:29:38 -0500

Hi Alexa,

How is this going to work with the video recording/sharing of meetings? 
Will the signage say something to the effect of that such will occur 
independent of lanyard color?

Thanks,
Lou

On March 6, 2018 3:06:45 AM Alexa Morris <amorris@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Joel,

On Mar 4, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Has there been thought to how practical this actually would be for us to 
implement?

Yes, the Secretariat has given considerable thought to how we will 
implement this for IETF 101. Apologies if I’m repeating some of what’s been 
said by others but I confess that I’ve not been able to follow every 
message on this thread.

Google and ICANN (IETF 101 co-hosts) are providing two different colors of 
lanyards. Wearing a white lanyard will indicate that photos are 
permissible, while wearing a red lanyard will indicate a preference to 
avoid being photographed. Both types of lanyard will be available at a 
table in the registration area; we will have signage on all lanyard stands 
that clearly explains the meaning of each lanyard color. In addition, we 
have asked the hosts to provide extra lanyards in each color as we 
anticipate that some attendees may be fine with photos in certain 
situations, but not in others.

After the meeting concludes, we will discuss how we can make improvements 
for IETF 102. And of course we will solicit feedback from the community via 
the meeting survey.

The experiment with ribbons at the last meeting was, in my view a dismal 
failure.  A few folks had one ribbon.  That might have helped with 
identifying those folks.

I’m sorry that you feel that way. We are indeed repeating the ribbon 
experiment as most people who responded to the IETF 100 survey indicated 
that — if they noticed the banners at all — they liked them. See Q8 here: 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/100-Survey-Results.pdf. We will be 
surveying attendees again after IETF 101, so please complete the 101 survey 
so that we get your feedback.

- Alexa

But then I started seeing people with 2, 3, or four ribbons.  Plus 
unofficial ribbons.  Once that started happening, I simply ignored the 
ribbons as being too hard to make sense of.  They became worse than the 
dots instead of better.  (And, lanyards probably are marginal also. Folks 
do bring their own for many reasons.  Bringing us back to "what does that 
color mean"?)

Separately, I wonder if this policy would be easier to understand if the 
presentation were inverted:
1) Some folks would prefer not to be photographed
2) We ask folks to respect that
3) To simplify respecting it, we will (assuming there is a practical way to 
do so) enable folks to indicate such preference.
4) As an organization, we will endeavor to respect that preference
4.1) We will still take official video, with no redaction
4.2) what we will ask our official photographers to do...
4.3) other exceptions

Then the policy would flow.  Assuming we can find a practical way to 
provide the indication.

I would still ask that part of the exceptions include our leadership while 
they are performing their jobs.

I note that one use of photography at meetings is for participants to take 
photos of presentations, to review the material later.  Likely with 
colleagues.  Do we really expect them to remove the presenter from such photos?

Yours,
Joel

On 3/4/18 12:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto: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
   <mailto: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.
    >