For the record, I do not consider pointing out a documented employer
interest after one has been explicitly denied to be a 'troll'.
If you are demanding issue of a press release on a subject, the fact
that your employer is a paid promoter of specific policy outcomes on
that issue is a fact that warrants disclosure.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Richard Bennett
<richard(_at_)bennett(_dot_)com> wrote:
Interested parties will note that I've stopped responding to Mr.
Hallam-Baker's trolls. This doesn't mean I agree with anything he says,
obviously. I've made a request of Russ Housley and the IETF community on my
own behalf. That's it.
RB
On 9/8/2010 3:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
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.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf