Re: "Early rebid" (was Re: letters from Ted & Alissa)

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Thu, 04 July 2019 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC36120682 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxFcssRwvWbe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90DC012001A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.110]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id j127hQfbJViXOj1fMhZFQ4; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:20:48 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1562246448; bh=QVJS9zqJuQktJ2JA2LoqPESIQxamWWS7rYTK82scHy8=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=AZLDJxr+DStxIPg0c4cL+kyrvqESwLuW84yuRomqpVwbUOPtXsSeTWBNmQKKoaZt7 gju/QLfS4yTQBbIXtr32FhqDXgQAqFElUSc7b1sK2VnarNNr7iTMhKIQlnYeGsqW7N t2tdGKwS6nyW4IXMAUD1cD1guZgdqyvThjVHt41B5/kSYV16cpYFphwGbH43Olk8gz +cOEoglxAMM3ZuB8xPNryM+jrwatQgCyT9zGQuIxL0I3h9kRf14p8V2uuydne6+J7T KMMz+Jwff1JEN3AvQJkgzXhGT8OdAFNYZNd4NxLBbRYElP/grWANGeZQjLCBnE/Db3 BAMXp3dnCnNdw==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:ed24:813e:2e1f:9710] ([IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:ed24:813e:2e1f:9710]) by resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id j1fLh7PMqqbISj1fMhambV; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:20:48 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0;st=legit
Subject: Re: "Early rebid" (was Re: letters from Ted & Alissa)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMCi=h1W15T-rt3MAu3NHBYdEaycUPw4XhRDBVNL4k_Xrg@mail.gmail.com> <BB4BA38F-B384-46A3-866C-4A61F4C7C681@sobco.com> <20190703221444.fvweit2qwmo5u4jp@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <815cdd1d-c544-23a6-33ec-d8cff473f385@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 09:20:46 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190703221444.fvweit2qwmo5u4jp@mx4.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iVPkh0Vn49X9jZRjs6XRMAha2pQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:20:51 -0000

On 7/3/2019 6:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As usual, I'm employed by ISOC but not speaking for it.
>

Hi Andrew -

It's pretty hard to not take the above with a grain of salt. You're not 
just an ISOC employee, but the president and CEO and as such have a lot 
of sway over the funding ISOC provides to the IETF. I can't imagine the 
I*  and community not giving your statements more weight than they might 
another generic IETF participant just because you say you're speaking 
for yourself.  It feels somewhat passive/aggressive too but that may 
just be me.

I can't remember Lynn or Cathy making a "not speaking for" statement in 
the time they were in your job, but this is the third from you in last 
day or so.  I wondering if it's really appropriate for you to do so 
given the relationships between the two organizations and your position?

Later, Mike