Gene Gaines
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And let us imagine that the IETF was bullied into making a second
statement as Mr Bennett demands, how would he use it? Would it be used
in a good faith effort to clarify or would it be used to claim that
the IETF had repudiated its earlier claim that it does not take sides
in this dispute and that it has endorsed the position Mr Bennett is
paid to promote.
While Mr Bennett is careful to keep saying 'we' it is a very long time
since he was an active participant here. The organization that he
works for, the ITIF is a DC thunk tank. Like all thunk tanks it exists
to cause people to accept the thinking that has already been thunk for
them by the people paying their bills under the guise of being an
objective research organization.
It is one thing to engage in these hair-splitting discussions and
having people bandy about the word 'truthful' as if it was personal
property etc. if they are made in good faith. But the tactics used go
way beyond what is acceptable for a paid advocate for a particular
position.
In this case, his activity here appears to me to be entirely
counter-productive. All he is doing is to draw more attention to a
claim that the AT&T policy office would almost certainly wish was
forgotten as quickly as possible.
--
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>
>> You can read AT&T's letter to the FCC here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020910396
>
> OK, I find the section heading, "Paid Prioritization Expressly Contemplated by the IETF" to be highly misleading.
>
>> I think you'll find that the phrases you quote below are not in the letter, so it's not clear that your comments are in any way relevant to the issue under discussion, Ted.
>
> We don't know what AT&T said to the reporter, do we? And what we seem to be arguing about is a press release, not a formal submission to the FCC stating an official position of the IETF (something which the IETF generally doesn't do).
>
> In any case, I still don't think we need to do anything, and if it's OK for you to state wants, I'll state a want. I want you to drop this. :-)
>
> -- Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf