jim - this is a distinction without a difference, because you're assuming that "rights" are absolute. that's not true, it depends on context.
for example: walk down the street to the county courthouse, sit down in a court room when a trial is going on, try to exercise your first amendment right to free speech. be sure to have an attorney on retainer...
alternatively, ask how many felons get to exercise their right to vote.
i'm sure that constitutional experts may be able to count the angels dancing on the head of this pin, but i don't think it's helpful to us.
for myself, i prefer to think of posting as a "right", because it's a fundamental part of what we do...
The word "privilege" comes from "privus" "lex", meaning private law. Any privilege requires action by some body, usually on a regular basis, to institute and maintain the "privilege".
I'm pretty sure we don't want to go there...
(If we're scared the word "right" may give the wrong connotations, please state what wrong connotations you're worried about, and we can work on that. However, the word "privilege" is a very poor substitute, IMHO.)
I know that we already reviewed this, but another comment just occurred to me, which I thought was worth mentioning...
The draft frequently mentions "posting rights", or a person's "right" to post to an IETF list.
Since the subject of the draft is how we can revoke someone's ability to post, I think that is inconsistent to call this a "right". It is a privilege (like driving a car) that can be administratively revoked, not a right (like free speech) that cannot be revoked.
What do you guys think?
Margaret