Hi John > On 1 Apr 2025, at 15:44, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. The registration is pretty clear about what are the conditions of registration, with the exception of this OFAC check, either directly or by reference to two pages on the website: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/terms-and-conditions/ https://www.ietf.org/policies/ > 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. I am entirely happy for us to add clear text explaining the OFAC test (it will help us explain why we need real names in the real name field and nicknames in the badge name field), I was just checking that this is actually what SM was asking for as there were a number of other threads in his emails that might have meant something different. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
