Apparently, you didn't read the entire message:
Here is the rest of it:
------------------- From pbaker@verisign.com ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip")
What happened to open and inclusive?
So far we have had a deliberate campaign of heckling that the
chair did nothing to stop followed by the chair taking sanctions
against anyone who complained about the hecklers.
Five members of the group have resigned in disgust at the heckler
faction.
You will note that none of the posts I have sent on this topic
have made it to the list. So even if I do make a statement
concerning IPR the chances are that the post will be seen are
nil.
The chair has admitted that the reason my posts are blocked is
that I am working on starting anti-spam groups in other forums,
I am not aware that that type of move has EVER been sanctioned
by IETF process.
---------------------
Phillip has a complaint about the IPR policies. This complaint is not
getting to the list, which is another complaint. Vixie tries to justify
this suppression in his message:
On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> pbaker@verisign.com ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip") writes:
>
> > What happened to open and inclusive?
>
> it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more
> emphasis has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order to
> get work done in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i think
> this is bad, and that the written rules should be changed, and then
> followed, and that the way things are trying to get done now has scaled
> even less well than before.
To which I refute Vixie, as you quote me:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 04:01:37PM -0400, Dean Anderson allegedly wrote:
> > The IPR policy (controversial as it might be), has nothing to do with who
> > can post to an IETF list. There is no reasonable basis to limit posts
> > because a person is involved in other groups. It has nothing to do with
> > any so-called 'emphasis on design teams and directorates', which seems to
> > be little more than a codeword for suppression of certain viewpoints.
>
> Go back and look at Phillip's original message. The complaint about
> democracy was not about posting rights. Enclosed:
>
> > > I disagree with any requirement imposed by a working group chair who
> > > believes he is not accountable to the group. I do not think that the
> > > way an IPR regime should be specified is a unilateral statement from
> > > the chair that a decision has been taken.
> > >
> > > An IPR policy should not be something that members of a group
> > > discover when they are told it has been imposed from above.
> > >
> > >
> > > What happened to open and inclusive?
>
>
>
>