On 7/22/2010 9:33 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
One moment of inattentiveness while
...
This is likely a common style of picking pockets.
Seems to be the key to their success.
After my wallet was taken by a double-teamed effort at a Paris metro escalator,
some years ago, I put effort into re
Dave,
I have read your proposal. Here's some initial feedback. But I might
change my opinion upon further reflection :-) For background, I have
never participated in nomcom work, so my experience on that aspect is
limited.
My comments are structured around your specific recommendations:
RECO
On 07/22/2010 12:33 AM, John Levine wrote:
It would be helpful for someone, anyone, to explain in terms specific
to the IETF what a privacy policy will accomplish.
Prevent cockups.
Too much time is spent discussing these issues over and over again.
Remember that RFID experiment and how the IE
I will respond only to one part of Jari's email, specifically the part about
the potential expertise requirement for part of the nomcom.
In the past there have been cases where some specific IESG members have been
perceived by some members of the community as being a problem. There have also
be
On Jul 24, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
On 07/22/2010 12:33 AM, John Levine wrote:
It would be helpful for someone, anyone, to explain in terms specific
to the IETF what a privacy policy will accomplish.
Prevent cockups.
Too much time is spent discussing these issues over and o
Ross Callon wrote:
>
> In the past there have been cases where some specific IESG members have
> been perceived by some members of the community as being a problem.
I would be amazed if it were otherwise; in fact I'd be surprised if
you could name a NomCom where no such case arose...
> There
eduroam (education roaming) is the secure, world-wide roaming access
service developed for the international research and education
community. eduroam allows students, researchers and staff from
participating institutions to obtain Internet connectivity across campus
and when visiting other partici
Jari,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. With luck, any revisions you make to them
won't render the following responses invalid...
On 7/24/2010 10:24 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
RECOMMENDATION -- Selective Exclusion
I agree in principle that we need this -- for conflict of interest and for
verifi
Dave,
John,
On 7/24/2010 2:24 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> How can we impose additional
> experience requirements on some NomCom members without implying that
> we want their opinions to be considered "better"?
I've been on 3 Nomcoms. Voting members with experience are typically
notable, but tho
The IETF has a legal home, named ISOC. Let me rephrase: "Do you think
ISOC is not subject to the laws of Europe?"
Of course they are. But that's OK, since ISOC has had a privacy policy in
place since 2006, which makes specific reference to the "safe harbor"
policy kludge worked out between th
On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:36 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Good grief.
>
> Indeed. Do we agree that this means we're done?
I'm not opposed to the IETF having a privacy policy separate from ISOC's; I'm
also not opposed to simply using ISOC's. Whatever we use, I think we should
agree to it.
What I
On 7/24/2010 3:36 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> The IETF has a legal home, named ISOC. Let me rephrase: "Do you think
>> ISOC is not subject to the laws of Europe?"
>
> Of course they are. But that's OK, since ISOC has had a privacy
> policy in place since 2006, which makes specific reference to t
What I don't understand is the amount of arm wrestling that happens on this
list.
You're certainly right, there's a culture of nitpicking. In this case I
think some of the issues are nitpicks, while some are significant. The
IETF is very peculiarly organized, which suggests that it would ne
Hi,
I'm only going to comment on the suggested changes to the BCP.
The other recommendations all seem to be reasonable additions to the
general guidance for future Nomcoms.
> RECOMMENDATION -- Selective Exclusion
>
> * The Nomcom Chair may selectively exclude any participant from a single
>
John Levine asked:
> Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate in some or
> all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely anonymous. Is this a
> reasonable expectation?
No. Anonymous or pseudonymous contributions would allow a scumbag
patent troll to inject id
> Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate in some or
> all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely anonymous. Is this
> a reasonable expectation?
Yes we should keep the anonymous ftp account available for download
drafts and rfcs.
I agree with Brian, anonymi
On Jul 25, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> John Levine asked:
>
>> Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate in some or
>> all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely anonymous. Is this
>> a reasonable expectation?
>
> No. Anonymous or pseudon
>> Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate
>>in some or all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely
>>anonymous. Is this a reasonable expectation?
>No. Anonymous or pseudonymous contributions would allow a scumbag
>patent troll to inject ideas into a standard
On Jul 25, 2010, at 5:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate
>>> in some or all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely
>>> anonymous. Is this a reasonable expectation?
>
>> No. Anonymous or pseudonymous contributions would al
In the sense that an email address is in fact used by an identifiable
person, it is an identity that is verified in the process of joining a
list.
This sounds to me like a situation where the Internet has evolved
underneath us. Until about 1995, email addresses were generally tied to
account
On Jul 25, 2010, at 6:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> The ability of users to sign up from throwaway accounts doesn't seem to have
> been a big problem in practice, but it does make it hard to claim that the
> lists are free of submarine patent trolls.
A person's identity and their behavior are
> The ability of users to sign up from throwaway accounts doesn't seem to have
> been a big problem in practice, but it does make it hard to claim that the
> lists are free of submarine patent trolls.
The problem is not hotmail, nor gmail, etc, I use gmail for email
lists because it is convenient
> Fred Baker wrote:
> I would presume that every IETF working group or BOF
> list has at least one person on it who is lurking in
> the discussion for the purpose of filing a frivolous
> lawsuit later. Not sure how we can prevent that.
We can't. As long as there is money to make in frivolous lawsu
23 matches
Mail list logo
