Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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/