+1 to all by Phillip Hallam-Baker. Gene Gaines
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com>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 <ty...@mit.edu> 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@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
