You are a staff member of ITIF according to their web site. I presume you are paid. ITIF is paid to present a certain point of view in the FCC rule making process. Therefore you have an interest that you really should have disclosed before making all these rather unpleasant statements on and off the list. Participants in the IETF are not always speaking for their employer. But that does not mean that we can claim to be a disinterested party. To make an affirmative claim of being disinterested in those circumstances is contemptible. On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's the point I've been trying to make. If you read the AT&T letter in > context, as a response to the Free Press letter that was completely bizarre, > you'll conclude that the AT&T letter was fundamentally accurate. So the > decision by the ISOC press relations people and the ISOC policy people to > use Russ as a propaganda weapon against the corrective remarks from AT&T was > simply twisted. > > If ISOC is going to trot Russ out to the press every time somebody files a > comment with the FCC they don't like, he's going to be pretty busy. If he's > only going to be used against the most egregious uses of IETF's name, he > should have been used against the Free Press letter that started this whole > fiasco. By attacking AT&T and giving Free Press a pass, ISOC chose to take > sides. I think it's wrong for IETF to do that, regardless of what the shiny > little poli sci majors who do policy for ISOC may think. > > Read the Free Press letter here: > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020652588 > > And contrary to the claims of some people, I'm not being paid by anyone to > engage in this discussion, it's something I've chosen to do as a member of > the IETF community who thinks the actions taken by ISOC in this matter are > harmful to the Internet. > > RB > > On 9/8/2010 11:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote: >> >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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