Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

+1 to all by Phillip Hallam-Baker.

Gene Gaines

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@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 <tytso@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
>