On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an open > organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership > organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a definition of how someone can > become a member (members of RIPE are companies and pay a fee), and are > considered open to that class of membership.
But the IETF isn't a membership organization - isn't that at least in part what's meant by "open," and why at least in part we don't have voting (in theory)? > That is of course true. I think my comment stands. If the IETF is not the > only organization in the world in which otherwise rational people expect to > pay money for privileges, make material contributions that might change the > world, and might have companies off suing each other over IPR, and > none-the-less expect to remain absolutely anonymous, it is one of a very > small number. I'm not a big fan of anonymity here, mostly because I don't know how consensus would work - in practice - with anonymous participants, as well as several of the issues you've identified. I don't think that "nobody else does it" is a good argument, unless what it actually means is "few companies will allow their employees to contribute to an organization with those kinds of policies," which is a very compelling argument. But I don't think privacy are that tightly coupled and I wonder what a privacy policy should say about that. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
