On the one hand, what people seem to be missing is at&t's PR was in response to an even more over-the-top filling by Free Press. On the other hand, that alone does not justify twisting what the IETF work product is. On the third hand, if one actually reads the at&t blog, at least 65% of it is (shudder) sensible. No one has clean hands here. -- Eric, who claims "employment" at Georgetown, which means this message absolutely, positively, does not reflect the views, opinions, comments, or thoughts of Georgetown University. Or at&t. Or Free Press. Or ITIF. Or Peter Pan. And if you missed it, in this message, I am neither representing ISOC, IAOC, ACM, IEEE, nor IEEE-USA. Just silly me. On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Gene Gaines wrote: > +1 to all by Phillip Hallam-Baker. > > 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
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf