-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: mercoledì 7 marzo 2018 12:30
To: Alexa Morris <amorris@xxxxxxxx>; Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Proposed Photography Policy
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.
>>> >
>>
>
>
