On 19 May 2011, at 19:35, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
It's ok for these terms, for the sake of this discussion. In case we want to expand it, we'll have to give it a name and a specification. Further steps would be implementing it, testing, and find how to publish it as an RFC.
I think you may be too far ahead of everyone Alessandro. It's not clear to me that there is a problem here that needs fixing. So far, no DPA appears to be demanding action about this issue or even saying that more formal consent processes are needed for mailing lists. I'd be inclined to wait until WP29 comes forward with a clear problem statement and set of requirements. Doing protocol development without these foundations is unlikely to produce anything useful: ie the IETF comes up with a solution to a different problem from the one that the DPAs care about. It would be nice if a DPA could come to this WG to talk about this issue. After all the WG exists to facilitate this sort of industry- government dialogue.