Subject: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:24:49 +0200

Hi!

In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number of reasons. 

The question is how this is handled in regards to note well, when they want jabber scribes to relay opinions or proposals to the meeting. 

Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to participate?

/O

---

From: Linus Nordberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:43:01 +0000

"Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]> wrote
Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:24:49 +0200:

| Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to participate?

If at all possible, yes.

What does anonymous mean in this context and what does it take for a
remote participant of an IETF meeting to authenticate (i.e. become not
anonymous)?

I'd guess that this has already been discussed to death but I thought
I'd ask anyway since the subject came up. Happy to read up on any
written material that I don't know about yet.

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:38 +0100

> | Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to participate?

Remote attendees should be no different to local attendees: every mic 
had a "state your name" card for those wanting to speak.

Besides, IETF mailing lists, drafts, and RFCs are not anonymous.

P.

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:12:53 +0000

Olle,

On 8/2/13 12:24 PM, "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The question is how this is handled in regards to note well, when they
>want jabber scribes to relay opinions or proposals to the meeting.
>
>Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners,
>but should they really be allowed to participate?

We don't allow anonymous comments at the microphone in face-to-face
meetings, requiring all people to clearly state their names and have those
names recorded in the meeting minutes and in the Jabber log.    I don't
see why we would change this for remote participants.

In all the years I've been doing Jabber-scribing, I've actually never run
into a case where a remote attendee requested anonymity.  I would have
been puzzled like you.  Obviously, anyone can be "anonymous" when joining
a Jabber chat room and can even make all the comments they want in the
chat room, but I think the moment they request a relay to the mic and the
comment goes into the audio record and thereby also the meeting minutes
then the comment needs to have a name attached to it.

My 2 cents,
Dan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:13:32 +0200

> The question is how this is handled in regards to note well, when they want jabber scribes to relay opinions or proposals to the meeting.

The IPR issues are one of the reasons it is questionable to permit 
anonymous in the IETF, specifically in the context of our technical work.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Linus Nordberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:59:38 +0000

Paul Aitken <[email-masked]> wrote
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:38 +0100:

| > | Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to participate?
| >
| > If at all possible, yes.
| 
| Remote attendees should be no different to local attendees: every mic
| had a "state your name" card for those wanting to speak.
| 
| Besides, IETF mailing lists, drafts, and RFCs are not anonymous.

Correct. So they're pseudonymous? This is why I asked what the procedure
is to move from anonymous to non-anonymous.

Stating a random string as your name in jabber rooms should by this
logic be perfectly fine. Sounds good to me but I bet there is history to
be told about this.

(Not trolling. I'm new here.)

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 02:26:59 -0700

At 2:54 PM +0100 8/2/13, Paul Aitken wrote:

>>  | Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous 
>> listeners, but should they really be allowed to participate?
>>
>>  If at all possible, yes.
>
>  Remote attendees should be no different to local attendees: every 
> mic had a "state your name" card for those wanting to speak.
>

They require that one state a name or email address, but there is no 
verification or authentication.  Anyone can state any name at the 
mic, or send an email from any address, with or without any name in 
the phrase component of From header field.  Obviously, in a meeting 
room as opposed to email or Jabber there is an additional aspect in 
that others in the room can see you, and you might even be wearing a 
name badge (regardless of where on one's body the name badge is 
placed).

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
A successful tool is used to do something undreamed of by its author.
                                                           --Johnson