Subject: Can employers forbid you from talking about IETF activities?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:20:26 -0400

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-masked]         +1 781/646-6318                     |
|                                                             |
| Senior Editor-at-Large  Information Security Magazine       |
|                         http://www.infosecuritymag.com      |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:29:32 -0400

Hi,

From:  [email-masked]
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  [email-masked]
Date:  Wed, 30 May 2001 08:20:26 -0400

>their public relations staff.

I don't see anything in the IETF rules which requires participants to
give private press interviews.  Certainly it is reasonable for anyone
to refuse to answer some questions about business plans and business
impact. But, for even the most technical question, there is no
requirement to answer private questions. Even for the most techncial
question posted to a working group mailing list, I don't see any rule
forcing anyone to answer such a technical question. It might be wise
for them to, to clarify or defend or attack a specification.  And if
the question is important, it seems likely that if they don't, someone
else will try, and their will be some discussion. But I don't see that
ordinary IETF participants accept any obligation to answer questions,
especially ones asked privately.

>I take that to mean that IETF activities are separate from employment 

What does "sparate" mean? For many people, their IETF activities are
in the same techncial areas as their employment activities. As long as
their IETF activities express their personal opinion, I don't see a
problem.  Many employers impose restrictions on their employees. If
those restrictions make it impossible for the employee to follow IETF
procedures (for example, prohibiting them from making IPR claims know
that relate to a standard under development), then they must withdraw
from the IETF or disobey their employer. The choice is theirs. But I
don't see any problem with an employer prohibiting press
interviews. (My employer has a general policy requiring Press
Relations participation in press interviews but has made an exception
for any interviews I have that relate solely to technical aspects of
standards work.)

>she does within the IETF.

IETF activities are primarily the postings to the mailing lists which
are, of course, pubicly available.  Your second sentence does not
follow from the first. "No reason" is pretty broad.

>world, the academic world, or "the media".

I think I've always been cooperative with press interviews. And I
think that is usually a good thing. But I see no obligation.

As long as IETF participants think that participation is useful and as
long as a significant part of the output of the IETF is considered
useful by the world, then the IETF will continue, in my opinion, to be
a success. This requires not the slightest cooperation with those from
the business, academic, or media worlds who want to poke around in,
interogate, analyse, or duplicate the IETF.

>representatives of their companies rather than as individual (and independent) 

Non sequiter.

>-pl

Thanks,
Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                    [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Streeet                         [email-masked]
 Milford, MA 01757 USA     +1 508-634-2066(h)   +1 508-261-5434(w)

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:53:33 +0200

I believe the reason many companies have "interesting" rules here is 
experience from the past - when a person speaking to the press would have 
his words interpreted as being a spokesman for their company, either 
revealing things that were intended to be hidden or promising things the 
company does not want to commit to.

Preferring to err on the safe side, many companies would rather have their 
press spokesmen speaking to the press.

(Cisco permits me to speak openly about IETF matters, but when it comes to 
saying what Cisco thinks of things or intends to do about things, I am 
under strict orders to refer to an appropriate spokesperson. So this is 
strictly my opinion, and is not in any way related to what Cisco thinks - 
if it thinks about it at all)

                     Harald

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:06:57 -0400

> I take that to mean that IETF activities are separate from employment

that's what it means.  however -

It's one thing to talk to Joe Schmoe about his work in IETF, quite another
thing to talk to Joe Schmoe of Femtosoft about his work in IETF.  If you're
going to mention Joe's employer in the article, his employer might care 
about what is being said.  Joe might be doing the IETF work on his own
time (this is unusual but not unheard of) and/or doing work which is not
entirely aligned with his employer's interests.  The reporter would usually
like to mention Joe's employer, believing (rightly or wrongly) that this
gives more credibility to the article.  But if Joe is pursuing his own 
agenda at IETF (again, this is more common than many people think) then
it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to associate Joe's employer with that
work.

Nobody is required to talk to reporters.  Unfortunately the trade press has 
a bad reputation for mis-representing technical issues and for placing
far too much attention on irrelevant activities and thoroughly brain-damaged 
ideas.  out of frustration from seeing their statements misrepresented and
even misquoted, some people have adopted a policy of not talking to reporters
at all.  It's hard to blame them.

Just because this is IETF policy doesn't mean that the employer agrees or
even understands this.  How many employees are going to sit down with the
appropriate people from their company and work out in detail just what they
can say (in the context of pure IETF work) or cannot say (in the context
of their employer's work) just so they can talk to the press?  It's a lot
of trouble and they're not getting much in return...

When people give you a reason for not doing some favor, most would rather
cite some external authority than say "I don't want to do this".  In many
cultures it is considered impolite to say the latter.

Keith

---

From: "Randall R. Stewart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:23:45 -0500

Pete:

Since, I think, you post this due to my deferment
to the cisco PR folks let me put a few words in my
defense...

1) I always try to be helpful with technical questions. You 
   can look at both the sigtran and tsvwg archives to see that
   I try to respond both publicly and privately on technical 
   questions.

2) My employer has a policy that PR must clear interviews. They,
   to my knowledge, are very very fair and work real hard with
   the interviewer to make sure that they can meet their schedule.
   I did not push you off to the cisco PR folks thinking you
   would go away... instead I thought that the good folks at
   Cisco PR would quickly put us together in time for you
   to meet your week-end deadline. I can only assume since 
   your contact email came last night and Cisco PR in S.J. is
   just getting in, that you have not tried to contact them... please
   do so, I think you will be surprised at how good they are
   to deal with..

3) You contacted me at my Cisco address (email wise). This makes
   it (to me) a formal contact through my employer. You will note
   that a LOT of my email comes from my home email address. This is
   due to the fact that I do try to separate the two... However that
being
   said, cisco does let me work on IETF standards has part of my job..
and they
   DO NOT specify which direction I should push/point on any issue. They
   are most excellent in letting me determine this... I am really quite
   impressed with how the company operates.. it seems to value technical
   correctness... I like that... 

4) I feel it is my obligation, as an employee, to honor Cisco's policies
   on PR and press relations. I realize this is my interpretation of
   their policies and I may even be going over-board with deferring
   you to PR.. but I like to error on the side of caution. Besides which
   in all my past dealings with Cisco PR, they are quite helpful and
   work hard at getting the interviewer what they need.

I would encourage you to please contact cisco PR and I think
you will find they will be most cooperative with you on getting
you in contact with me...

Regards

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[email-masked] or [email-masked]
815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:37:37 -0500

As far as I can see, IETF participants are only bound by IETF rules
when they are participating in IETF activities. 

  Brian

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:10:28 -0700

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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:11:13 +0100 (BST)

> under non-disclosure agreements or receive intellectual property protections. 

Um. Have you noticed the large ISOC copyright statement at the end of
internet drafts?

> world, the academic world, or "the media".

The right to silence is still a right in most parts of the world.

'My employer won't let me talk about it' strikes me as a foolproof,
solid, and eminently _polite_ way of blowing off reporters.

IETF _obligations_? To something that is voluntary and memberless?

L.

and spends most of its time in Minneapolis?

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:08:54 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
	[..]
> I take that to mean that IETF activities are separate from employment

Until a WG is formed with a charter that includes "talking to the
press", there's nothing about working in the IETF that imposes an 
obligation to be pushed, poked, and prodded by the media.

Here's a litmus test. Try interviewing participants in public, on
a WG mailing list. If you get told the discussion is off topic,
then your interview isn't part of participation in the IETF.

cheers,
gja
____________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/

---

From: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:55:19 -0500

I thought IETF was about technology, internet, communications and their
development, but from a few days now this list has become a senseless place
(I don't wanna call it a forum under the present circumstances) where
everyone complaint about spam and being interviewed by the media.

    Both can be solved by following the most basic rules:

1. IETF mailing list was NOT created to receive spam. Just delete the emails
which you don't want or like.
2. Is only YOUR bussiness if you want to reveal the information about the
projects you are developing for your company, you and only you know the
consecuences of revealing the details of your project or the confidential
information of your company.

    Please, IETF list is for technology and its development discussions, not
for complaint about spam or cheap politics.

Best Regards.

Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia
Technical Support and Customer Care Supervisor
Meg@Red Veracruz.
www.megared.net.mx

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:27:49 -0700

> for complaint about spam or cheap politics.

Didn't you know? That's how the IETF works.... (and as the
spam thread suggested, you can always unsubscribe or hit delete...)

gja

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:01:47 -0400

> for complaint about spam or cheap politics.

Okay, I'd like to complain about the complaints about
the complaints.  1) They're messing with my worldview,
and 2) the traffic from them is exceeding the complaint
traffic, and that exceeds the traffic from the stuff
being complained about.  

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:56:58 -0400

> for complaint about spam or cheap politics.

IMHO, you are mistaken.

- the issue of how to deal with spam on IETF lists is entirely relevant
  to IETF business and therefore an appropriate topic for discussion
  on the IETF list.

- the issues of how IETF participants deal with the press, and how 
  to interpret IETF policies regarding individual participation, are 
  entirely relevant to IETF business and therefore appropriate topics
  for discussion on the IETF list.

IETF participants are often passionate about their beliefs and about
wanting the Internet to work well.  This occasionally results in heated 
discussions and strong statements of opinion.  These should not be 
confused with "cheap politics".

We cannot entirely separate technology and politics.  Many of us are
working on this technology because we want to make the world a better   
place, and that is inherently a political activity.

Keith

---

From: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:27:52 -0500

>   to IETF business and therefore an appropriate topic for discussion

I agree in this point, but the way it was handled I think it was
innapropriate because of the people complainig only two or three gave
suggestions on how to resolve it...

> confused with "cheap politics".

I support clean discussion and strong statements of opinion. But why some
complain about if they may say what they do or not, I think we're already
grownups enough to know what I can say here or not. Thats what I mean by
"cheap politics".

> place, and that is inherently a political activity.

I agree in this point also, and a colleague here told me this very same
words. And I also want a better world. So I realized.

Thank you Keith for your comments.

jmag.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:52:01 -0700

>   for discussion on the IETF list.

actually, both these probably belong over in poisson

randy