Very simply, the press has no right (that I know of) to demand that
anyone respond to press reporters' questions, though I suppose
reporters have the right to publish the fact that people will not
talk to them. Yet, even this seems to me to be out of bounds in most
cases, unless it is an official statement of a company that the
company does not wish to make a statement.
I expect that stating that "Joe Blow of XYZ Corporation", as a named
individual, "refuses to answer a reporter's questions because of
company policy" is out of bounds unless the statement comes from a
company official as an official statement of the company.
There are lots of reasons why people do not like to talk to Press
Reporters, and there is no reason for them to be absolutely accurate
in citing the reasons why they do not wish to speak to reporters and
be reported. So, if someone tells you that their company forbids
them to speak to you, what tells you that this answer is even close
to the truth (for reporting purposes).
How likely is it that they are just throwing up a smoke screen to
conveniently (and politely) end the conversation? On what basis can
a reporter claim any validity for such a response?
So, as I see it, the press does have free speech rights,
but but so do interviewees have free silence rights;-)...
(Silence of course being a form of Speech;-)...
And, in any case, the open work of an IETF working group is openly
available in the open discussions on open mailing lists and in open
WG face meetings, and in openly published IETF DRAFTS.
Cheers...\Stef
At 08:20 -0400 30/05/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I write about IETF-related topics for a number of publications and websites.
>Most IETF participants are incredibly helpful and responsive when I ask them
>questions about the work they are doing, particularly authors of
>RFCs and I-Ds.
>
>However, there are (infrequent) exceptions, usually employees of large
>companies who believe that their contracts forbid them from speaking to the
>press, under any circumstances. These folks usually say something like, "My
>company won't allow me to say anything about the RFC I wrote" and refer me to
>their public relations staff.
>
>RFC 2418, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", states:
>
> Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by
> formal representatives of organizations.
>
>I take that to mean that IETF activities are separate from employment
>activities.
>
>Further, as an open organization, IETF activities are not supposed to come
>under non-disclosure agreements or receive intellectual property protections.
>So there should be no reason why an individual could not talk about what he or
>she does within the IETF.
>
>As IETF standards track specifications continue to gain importance to the
>world at large, IETF participants need to understand their obligations and
>rights to discuss these activities with outsiders--whether from the business
>world, the academic world, or "the media".
>
>The alternative, IMO, is to have IETF participants who are employed by
>industry companies such as Cisco and Microsoft viewed as official
>representatives of their companies rather than as individual (and independent)
>participants.
>
>Please discuss.
>
>-pl
>
>
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Pete Loshin http://www.loshin.com |
>| [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 781/646-6318 |
>| |
>| Senior Editor-at-Large Information Security Magazine |
>| http://www.infosecuritymag.com |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------+
