This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread), specific members of the community (some of which are sponsors) were clearly targeted in a hurtful manner. The delivery of the content did not seem within the spirit of NANOG, but instead a personal opinion piece. While no specific rules of the speaking guidelines <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation/guidelines> were likely broken, this does bring up a point of where the acceptable threshold exists (if at all). To be abundantly clear - I have nothing against the content itself, the presenter, the PC's choice of allowing this talk, etc. - I only wish to clarify if our guidelines need modernization. As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or suppliers)? For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific names mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a service provider any different? --Matt