Here is what the policy says about that:
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.
-Ekr
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 4:38 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli
<daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Loa, Alexa,
Good point. If lanyard colors apply also to video recording I'd
like to speak in defense of the poor guys that will have to do the
recordings...as a short term solution for IETF 101 couldn't we
make all the chairs and the presenters "sign" that they agree to
be video recorded (the chairs during the entire session of their
WG and the presenters during the slot of their presentation only)
and "force" the cameras on presenters+chairs only?
If OTH the colors do not apply to the WG sessions...business as usual.
Thanks
Daniele
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: mercoledì 7 marzo 2018 12:30
> To: Alexa Morris <amorris@xxxxxxxx <mailto:amorris@xxxxxxxx>>;
Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto:amorris@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> >> On Mar 4, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<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>
> >>> <mailto: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>
> >>> <mailto: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.
> >>> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
