Do we have guidelines as to what is an "organization affiliation"?
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:26 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > Two things have occurred since the message below as sent to the IETF mail > list. First, we got a lawyer in Europe to do some investigation, and the > inclusion of the email address on the blue sheet will lead to trouble with > the European privacy laws. Second, Ted Hardie suggested that we could > require a password to access the scanned blue sheet. > > Based on the European privacy law information, the use of email will result > in a major burden. If the email address is used, then we must provide a way > for people to ask for their email address to be remove at any time in the > future, even if we got prior approval to include it. Therefore, I suggest > that we collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple > people with the same name instead of email address. > > Based on Ted's suggestion, I checked with the Secretariat about using a > datatracker login to download the scanned blue sheet. This is fairly easy to > do, once the community tracking tools are deployed. However, with the > removal of the email addresses from the blue sheets, it is unclear that there > is any further need for password protection of these images. Therefore, I > suggest that we proceed without password protection for the blue sheet images. > > Here is a summary of the suggested way forward: > > - Stop collecting email addresses on blue sheets; > > - Collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people > with the same name; > > - Scan the blue sheets and include the images in the proceedings for the WG > session; > > - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of > the proceedings; and > > - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. > > Russ > > > On May 6, 2012, at 12:46 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > >> We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough >> on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions: >> >> (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more >> important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information. >> >> (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to >> distinguish participants with the same or similar names. >> >> >> Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows: >> >> - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets; >> >> - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG >> session; >> >> - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of >> the proceedings; and >> >> - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. >> >> >> On behalf of the IESG, >> Russ >> >
