RE: IETF privacy policy - update
+1 also Monique -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Fred Baker (fred) Sent: Thu 7/8/2010 12:07 PM To: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - update +1 for a privacy policy. As to the question of this particular one, I'm going to profess some level of ignorance. I suggested starting from Google, Cisco, and/or ISOC's privacy policies and editing from there, and someone said I should pick a more appropriate starting point. What would be appropriate privacy policies to compare/contrast? Personally, apart from references to ISOC-specific things, I thought ISOC's privacy policy was relatively simple and covered the major points. The draft is more detailed and more complete. The differences may be a matter of taste: look at http://www.isoc.org/help/privacy/ and ask yourself whether the provisions in "what do we collect" and "what do we do with it" are reflected in the draft, and I think you might agree that they are, with the draft being more explicit in different areas. But I think that the ISOC rules, when considered in an IETF light, are actually the same. We collect things that are standardly collected, but we don't share them, and we do use them to make our internal processes work better. If there are others to compare/contrast, to see if we have missed a point or are stating for something not usually said, I'd be interested to know. I would agree that this statement should be made by someone in I* leadership, either the IESG, IAOC, or perhaps IAB, and that it belongs on a web page as opposed to being in an RFC. I would suggest that a consensus be called for via a hum over VoIPv6. But the web page should be in flat ASCII with no graphics other than ASCII-art. On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a public-facing IETF >> privacy policy (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt). >> I've submitted an update based on feedback received: >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-01.txt >> >> In discussing the policy with the IAOC and others, it seems clear that the >> RFC model is probably not the best model for maintaining and updating a >> document like this. It is more likely to fall within the scope of the IAOC >> and/or the Trust. In order for the IAOC to consider taking this on and >> devoting resources to figuring out what its format should be, they need to >> hear from the community that a public-facing privacy policy is something >> that the community wants. So I have two requests for those with any interest >> in this: >> >> 1) Respond on this list if you support the idea of the IETF having a privacy >> policy (a simple "+1" will do). > > +1 > >> >> 2) If you have comments and suggestions about the policy itself, send them >> to this list. > > I would be very happy if the IETF adopted the privacy policy proposed in your > draft. > > It seems to me the work of writing an acceptable policy is 90% done and the > arguments that creating a privacy policy will detract from other work are > pretty weak. It's a volunteer organization, people vote with their feet with > what they want to work on. Just because Alissa spend time writing a policy > document does not mean that time would be directed to other things if we did > not want to do a privacy policy document. I don't think that having a privacy > policy is going to bring a bunch of new contributors to the IETF, but I can > imagine a case where the lack of a privacy policy caused some administrative > group to do something really unfortunate which resulted in some good people > leaving the IETF. > > A privacy policy is not something the IETF typically has a lot of people that > are really experienced and qualified to draft. But we are very lucky here - > we have multiple people that understand IETF culture and values, understand > internet privacy policies and laws, and are willing to write a proposal. > Unless this proposal is deeply flawed in some way I can't see, why wouldn't > we just do it. > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Historic Moment - Root zone of the Internet was just signedminutes ago!!!
+1!!! -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Fri 7/16/2010 5:27 AM To: Russ Housley Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Historic Moment - Root zone of the Internet was just signedminutes ago!!! Congratulations ! A lot of hard work by a lot of people went into this, and we owe those people a vote of thanks. Regards Marshall On Jul 16, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I am passing on this announcement, and I want to add my thanks to > everyone in the Internet community that played a role in deploying > DNSSEC. > > Russ Housley > IETF Chair > > -- Forwarded Message > From: Rod Beckstrom > Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:24:38 -0700 > To: Rod Beckstrom > Cc: ICANN Board of Directors , Staff > > Subject: Historic Moment - Root zone of the Internet was just signed > minutes ago!!! > > Dear Board and Staff, > > Now is a historic moment for the Internet, ICANN, IETF, Verisign and > the Dept of Commerce. > > The root zone of Internet is now more secure - signed > cryptographically > w/ DNSSEC. > > Special thanks to Rick Lamb, DNSSEC lead in ICANN; Steve Crocker, > SSAC; > Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC; all of you on board and staff and the many > people > in the multi-stakeholder community who have made this happen. > > Congratulations. A true milestone in the history of the Internet. > > We've had a remarkable year of accomplishments. > > Warmly, > > Rod > > Rod Beckstrom > President and CEO > ICANN > > One World. One Internet. Everyone Connected. > > > -- End of Forwarded Message > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] WCIT slides
Well stated Arturo! Monique Sent from my iPhone On 19.03.2013, at 13:32, "Arturo Servin" wrote: > >As I mentioned in the mic during the IAB-sponsored Discussion of WCIT, > during the week I had the opportunity to talk and interact to some of > the policy fellows invited by ISOC (in general were people from the > national regulator or from the ministry of telecommunications -AFAIK-). > I also had the opportunity (along with Marcelo Bagnulo) to have > breakfast with them and to present a summary of the Internet ecosystem > and its complexities. > >From my experience during the week and the IAB-sponsored Discussion of > WCIT I have this comments that I said I was going to share in the list: > > - It seems that there is not much understanding for governments in how > the Internet ecosystem works. > > - Governments believe (or believed) that ITU is/was the common place to > discuss and try to resolve Internet matters. > > - The Internet is an open entity with many organizations interacting > with each other and the relationships among them may be very complex. We > need to communicate this to governments and help them to interact with > all the Internet-stake-holders. > > - Everyone has a place and a role in the Internet open model. Even > governments. We need to let them play, help them to find their place, > teach them the rules of the game and avoid to step in each others feet > (I used the example of an RIR standardizing protocols or the IETF trying > to mandate national laws) > > - To solve many of the today's Internet problems requires interaction at > several layers (technical, policy, government and the separation between > them is very blur) and between a diverse set of actors. It requires > communication and coordination among all parties. > > - The communication and dialogue has to be a common effort. Today it is > not enough to say that the IETF or the X forum is open to everybody. > Being open is a must, the next step is going out and create > communication channels, not wait for them. > > - The Internet does not have a common API for governments and it may > never have one. Local APIs do not exists or are complex. [1] > > - As technical community we need to inform governments which > technological solutions we already have. This minimize or eliminate > their desire to "re-invent the wheel" in closed forums or create > pseudo-standards that contradict ours. > >I think that is all. I hope it helps for future discussion about the topic. > > > Regards, > as > > [1] I borrowed the idea of the "Government API" from John Curran. > > On 3/15/13 10:57 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> With apologies for the problems making these slides available, and >> thanks to Bernard for finding a work-around, for now the slides are >> available via links from >> http://www.iab.org/2013/03/14/wcit-what-happened-whats-next/ >> >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >> >> Original Message >> Subject: Re: [IAB] WCIT slides >> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:40:04 + >> From: Bernard Aboba >> >> >> I have created a blog entry on the IAB website that points to >> the slides, agenda and session recording: >> http://www.iab.org/2013/03/14/wcit-what-happened-whats-next/ >>
