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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf