out of interest, did any other groups need to have
these restrictions?
At 11:03 PM 7/3/2001 -0700, James P. Salsman wrote:
>I hope that the latest attempt at the OPES charter is resoundingly
>rejected by the IESG.
>
>If it is not, though, I would suggest these three special requirements
>for an OPES working group:
>
>1. The Security Considerations section could be required to be placed
>at the front of all OPES drafts, following the legend, "This OPES
>working group publication is required to have a Security Considerations
>section that meets certain requirements [cite BCP]. Readers are
>encouraged to confirm for themselves that the Security Considerations
>section requirements have been met."
>
>2. Another section, "Ethics Considerations," could follow immediatly
>thereafter, and explore the ethical implications of the technology
>being described, in terms of privacy, disclosure and other terms of
>service requirments, and impacts upon common carrier feasability.
>
>3. A third section, "Legal Considerations," could survey and cite the
>laws that could be inadvertently violated by careless implementation
>or use of the technology described, such as the U.S.'s Electronics
>Communications Privacy Act.
>
>Cheers,
>James
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology
