ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Enum] (no subject)

2001-10-25 09:50:03
Thank you for your response. U.S. Federal laws require that
such discussions be held in open forums. As a individual from
the .EDU community, I am not sure what your interest would
be, but everyone is welcome to their opinion.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO


----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Massey" <masseyd(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
To: "Jim Fleming" <jimfleming(_at_)prodigy(_dot_)net>; 
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>;
<trutkowski(_at_)versign(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)


| ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org dropped from this thread

You posted to the ietf list so I assume you want some feedback from
the thousands of people like me who read the list.

First, you are asking for the disclosure of "widely reported"
information.  Think about the logic of that for minute.
I'm not sure what you mean by disclose, but my dictionary says:
  disclose: To make known something heretofore kept secret.

Second, why should I care about Tony and Dave's employment
history?  It is true that IETF topics have commercial implications,
but the technical merit of an idea is not related to how it impacts
the foo.com business plan.  Stick to the technical content and
discuss corporate agendas elsewhere.  I don't see any technical
point here that warrants the attention of the entire IETF.

Dan

Jim Fleming wrote:

Dave,

Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them
and what their real agenda is ?

It is widely reported that you are paid by Neustar, Neulevel, ICANN,
and/or MCI/Worldcom (i.e. Vinton Cerf).

Will you be disclosing who has paid you all these years to participate
in discussions as if you are a neutral party ?




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>