<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Economist conference about telecoms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://james.cridland.net/blog/2008/04/24/an-economist-conference-about-telecoms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://james.cridland.net/blog/2008/04/24/an-economist-conference-about-telecoms/</link>
	<description>Radio, broadcasting, websites, and beer. Possibly.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue,  7 Oct 2008 01:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Doug Clow</title>
		<link>http://james.cridland.net/blog/2008/04/24/an-economist-conference-about-telecoms/#comment-32854</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Clow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://james.cridland.net/blog/?p=595#comment-32854</guid>
		<description>Fascinating stuff, as ever, but I think you may have the Chatham House rule a bit wrong - as I understand it (and as &lt;a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/"&gt;Chatham House itself&lt;/a&gt; have it), the rule says that you can use the information freely, but you must not identify the source, by name or attribution.  So you could publish all the interesting stuff you'd picked up there, and say that it had come from the meeting, but not say who had said it.  

Obviously the people in the room might have had a different understanding and that would be the rule with moral force here.  Lots of people use 'Chatham House rules' to loosely mean "don't quote people on contentious things they may say", rather than the strict actual rule.  You were there so much better placed than I am to judge here!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fascinating stuff, as ever, but I think you may have the Chatham House rule a bit wrong - as I understand it (and as <a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/">Chatham House itself</a> have it), the rule says that you can use the information freely, but you must not identify the source, by name or attribution.  So you could publish all the interesting stuff you&#8217;d picked up there, and say that it had come from the meeting, but not say who had said it.  </p>
<p>Obviously the people in the room might have had a different understanding and that would be the rule with moral force here.  Lots of people use &#8216;Chatham House rules&#8217; to loosely mean &#8220;don&#8217;t quote people on contentious things they may say&#8221;, rather than the strict actual rule.  You were there so much better placed than I am to judge here!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ashley Brown</title>
		<link>http://james.cridland.net/blog/2008/04/24/an-economist-conference-about-telecoms/#comment-32845</link>
		<dc:creator>Ashley Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:04:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://james.cridland.net/blog/?p=595#comment-32845</guid>
		<description>That's not how the Chatham House Rule works! You can report *what* was said, just not who said it or their affiliation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not how the Chatham House Rule works! You can report *what* was said, just not who said it or their affiliation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
