[190071] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jun 14 17:49:08 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWr0NYbF=e7EWvgKW6mgorxaFuyhJw2xdMk00zBff+v3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:48:51 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 14:05 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Golding <dgolding@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>> "If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should =
receive
>>> an advance
>>> draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about =
their
>>> intentions. "
>>=20
>> One of the least savory aspects of the technical press and industry =
analyst
>> worlds is something called pre-pub review. That's where big vendors =
pay you
>> to see stuff before its printed, so they can attempt to censor it. =
It
>> happens all the time, and you never know about it.
>=20
> Hi Daniel,
>=20
> That's quite a bit further than anything I suggested. My notion was
> that after the presentation has been accepted, the mentioned vendors
> receive a copy... not so they can attempt to squelch it but so that
> they can respond when the presentation is given.
Here=E2=80=99s the problem with your theory, William=E2=80=A6
Once you hand it to the vendors, you lose any semblance of control over =
how they use it.
Indeed, you=E2=80=99d like to hand it to them for that purpose, but once =
you do, nothing prevents them from the actions described by Daniel.
Indeed, this tradition in the print press began with exactly the kind of =
fair-minded idea of which you speak. Nonetheless, commercial interests =
drove it off the rails into exactly the dark and twisted kind of thing =
that Daniel describes. Such is the nature of commerce.
> Besides, which among you would dare try to squelch a NANOG
> presentation? Y'all are well familiar with the Streisand Effect.
Well=E2=80=A6 Some $LARGE_ORGANIZATIONS seem to either not know, don=E2=80=
=99t learn, or don=E2=80=99t care. Hard to tell which.
For example, there=E2=80=99s a certain industry that has gone through =
the following progression:
1. The FCC put forth very light-handed almost voluntary =
regulations on net neutrality.
2. They sued the FCC claiming it had no such authority.
3. The FCC put forth a slightly heavier-handed regulation.
4. They sued the FCC claiming it had no such authority.
5. The FCC issued a ruling entirely within its authority =
which was quite a bit more heavy-handed.
It was the only tool left in the tool box once the =
lighter approaches were ruled invalid.
6. They complained that the regulation was =E2=80=9Ctoo =
heavy-handed=E2=80=9D.
7. They sued the FCC claiming it had no such authority.
8. A federal appeals court just upheld the FCC 2:1.
9. They say they want to take it to the supreme court.
The bottom line, when there=E2=80=99s enough money on the line, some =
organizations with a vested interest will do anything and everything =
they can to protect their ability to obtain that money. Helping them is =
optional. Helping them by trying to be nice is naive.
Owen
