Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 08 September 2010 22:02 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031FE3A67E9 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4sS1v-1uFn7s for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B4B3A6A03 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so429037iwn.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZLcP0CFsnN/VbPeYuPAmrxKShbGiqlq5CldzQPqIdL4=; b=OTVAGy18Btp076kvEcL44yovAgxBovNB6vzfIsH+EhoiwGkURp2XDVPplLqBC6muxG +yCNwn4r/NBR5bF3MzF9anc1WlCePk+S3VtT3gQzY1f6h4YjbkD4CRR+5ujsY5QYQZEX lUouMCDBFnvnUK9HqiFO+qs/oOSPA12tu5FX0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jQ511hNhFrEPL8p+Gwcma1kBFH4IJfRv27Bstsbm/Te+3znlHgMdFuTW2CBaLZaJhr ArtcnTV6c8QB9LtNNpnw59liynvyRQ7rgOJxk5aTqfjKVNTbPBclMlRqMrkkSqAtgMEx gvINtz5qJ0n9CfCGYm2PA9q0uDLjPOEv0HAn4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.152.143 with SMTP id g15mr10181983ibw.76.1283983345145; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.35.70 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C87F08B.3060108@bennett.com>
References: <4C815335.4050209@bennett.com> <4C81554D.5060000@gmail.com> <4C8169DF.7010202@bennett.com> <4C8172AC.9060202@gmail.com> <4C817866.7040400@bennett.com> <4C86C215.9080209@vigilsec.com> <4C86CA16.6050501@bennett.com> <4C86EEFC.5030001@gmail.com> <4C86F541.6060007@bennett.com> <69E1D835-4B6E-4B50-83E7-C1F41E133974@mit.edu> <4C876E55.3030803@bennett.com> <D4A97B3C-0D76-4E71-B1BC-575432EF4B22@mit.edu> <AANLkTi=Gg0RAvs_rWdmWqK=wuPsfhaPUANe3nFqJ=_wq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=SGomzWrw=qt6vR0XNzdBU+OK_uxBzyqeHAUyP@mail.gmail.com> <10999340-BC37-48D0-8633-95D0A2DB7560@standardstrack.com> <4C87F08B.3060108@bennett.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:02:24 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEetW8QQvRf4Sbd8Njx9F-XJuxuO1znZ6_1b+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:14:41 -0700
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:02:00 -0000
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@bennett.com> 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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 David Morris
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 John C Klensin
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ofer Inbar
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Matthew Ford
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Chris Fenton (Iridescent)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ben Niven-Jenkins
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Mans Nilsson
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Paul Hoffman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Gene Gaines
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Ronald Bonica
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Andrew G. Malis
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Stephen Farrell
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's David Morris
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Fred Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Olaf Kolkman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Shockey
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Kevin Fall
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Braden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Sam Hartman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Yoav Nir
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jari Arkko
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens