On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:07 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Aaron,
At 11:40 19-06-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
Relating to the statement above(I assume Phillip is addressing the US
Academia), not quite sure are we still discussing the same topic?
sorry, I am bit confused .. since IETF is an international organization.
I changed the subject line as I am as confused as to whether the IETF is an
international organization.
There was a mention of "First the Civil Rights act, then Selma... ;)". I
assume that the act is an Act for the United States of America. Harvard was
also mentioned. I did a quick search and I found out that "Harvard
University is an American private Ivy League research university".
Dear SM,
Are new ideas embraced without any prior geographic endorsement? While this
seems to be the case, organizations with greater resources, often from various
regions, will steer development.
There be dragons empathizing about motivations to understand declared rules,
stated justifications, or even what censuses really means. Even with the best
of intentions, it is very difficult to have meaningful discussions about
motivations .
In respect to privacy, organizations both sell and purchase profile information
containing individual preferences and contact information. There are also
organizations that attempt offer selective relationships, often via a social
network. In deciding what is important to protect, the identity of those
initiating transactions, or those receiving them are at odds.
Even a statement females are more sensitive about security than men in respect
to technology in the home can be viewed as either a real insight or a sexist
view. By having gender diversity, questioning the underlying motivations can
be avoided. It seems the same can be said of those trading profiles or and
those offering protection from profilers. Motivation plays a critical role in
steering development. It is just not something easily discussed within an
international organization.
Regards,
Douglas Otis