--On Monday, March 31, 2025 14:49 -0700 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 12:25 PM 31-03-2025, Jay Daley wrote: >... >> As it is a legal requirement that we perform this match, no >> consent is needed and nobody can refuse or withdraw consent. > > Thank you for clarifying that. > >> As far as I can tell, you appear to be saying that consent is >> needed for someone's name to appear in this list and there are >> consequences if they do not give that consent - if I have >> misunderstood please correct me. Consent is not required for >> meeting participant names to be published. The entire manner in >> which the standards are developed is designed around the >> requirement for a transparent and accurate archive of the >> standards development process. > > Here's how I see it. The terms and conditions and the policy > included in it mentions transparency and consent. I would expect > the information to be easily accessible as part of the meeting > registry flow. I usually ask questions when I am asked for > personal information as I like to know what I am consenting to. If > the IETF Administration LLC tells me that some information is > required to comply with a legal requirement, I may ask a question > or two. Jay, As a small variation on SM's position/ questions and purely in the interest of clarification, there should always be an option of opting out. That does not imply the right to agree and then withdraw consent (part of where the legal requirements come in). It is entirely reasonable, given those legal requirements, for the IETF to say "a condition of participation (or of, e.g., registering for a meeting) is agreeing that...". Of course, the notorious "Note Well" is intended to do just that. Now, IANAL and it has been several meetings since I've read the registration fine print carefully, but my impression has been that those conditions -- things one agrees to by registering and/or attending a meeting -- are adequately spelled out. However, as a US national with what some consider tendencies toward suspicion, I may have some small advantage over, e.g., SM, in spotting language drawn to conform to US legal requirements that might not be perceived as 100% clear. I assume that none of the legal requirements prohibit disclosing their existence (and would be very frightened if such requirements applied to the IETF. Then, if he or others sincerely believe that the information needed to make informed decisions as to whether to participate in the IETF is not readily available, then it is probably worth some effort to try to make it more available and more clear .. not because of any legal requirement to disclose beyond whatever we are doing today but because it would be helpful ethically and as a matter of openness, broad participation, and good will. I recognize that spelling everything out explicitly can get very tedious and actually discourage careful reading and understanding. I think the community has to trust you, your colleagues, and your legal advisors to strike the right balance and to be creative about how the information is presented or otherwise made available. But SM's comments suggest to me that maybe the current presentation and information availability are worth an extra look. thanks, john
