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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf