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:
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.
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