Re: DISCUSSION: archiving of NOMCOM information

[todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: archiving of NOMCOM information


>     Date:        Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:49:03 -0800
>     From:        "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
>     Message-ID:  <008201c1cc41$516f1720$020aff0c@tsg1>
>
>   | OK say someone finally has it up to wherever they do and they file a
lawsuit
>   | against the IETF or the NonCom or any of the other orgs that piggyback
off
>   | of this "there will be no records kept" philosophy. What then?
>
> What then?
>
>   | My take is that the courts come in and find that
>   |
>   |     1) none of the organizations have any way of proving squat except
>   | through the verbal testimony of the people that will likely be named
as
>   | co-defendants to the cause of action.
>
> So, nothing can be proven.   Big deal.  That happens lots of times.
> Nothing proven, nothing happens.
>
>   | So I have to ask "Why should we believe them?".
>
> No particular reason.   But on the other hand, why would you believe the
> person bringing the action?   They obviously feel aggrieved - they have
> just as much incentive to lie.   Or more likely, in both cases, to have
> a different view of what actually is the truth.

Then how is this process comparable to that of any other standards
organization? The answer is simple. They are not.

>
> But please note, I'm not suggesting that nothing be archived.   It's
> entirely reasonable to archive minutes of the meetings, summaries of
> comments made (I don't see any real point archiving the comments
themselves
> without any attribution, that would simply be worthless, there's no way
> to check if the comment was actually made, or just inserted into the
record
> to justify some decision), and such.   I just see no point keeping precise
> records of every confidential comment that is made.  In fact, that would
> probably be illegal in some bizarre circumstances - consider the
possibility
> that a lawyer might get appointed to the nomcom someday, and someone makes
> what is a privileged legal communication to that lawyer...
>
> kre
>