[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] Eureka?



And so it goes. Guilt by association.
 
Someone from the CORE faction makes a statement, and they're shot down as being
biased because of their affiliation.
 
Same thing here from Tony, who's views usually track NSI's. Well, hey, so do mine, and
I want to be their competitor! Imagine that.
 
But, as things go, the views are still valid, regardless of who holds them.
 
--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only, of course
This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Stubbs
To: dwmaher@ibm.net ; Javier SOLA ; wg-c@dnso.org ; A.M. Rutkowski
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

hello tony...
 
its quite predictable that you would echo the same line as phil sbarro, mike daniels, david johnson, jim rutt
 
you know tony ...
there might be a few people out there who might not agree with that interpretation ...
 
ken
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: A.M. Rutkowski
To: dwmaher@ibm.net ; Javier SOLA ; wg-c@dnso.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

Hi David,

Glad to see you on-line.

If the "intellectual property goes to the awardee", one wonders why the
Cooperative Agreement includes section 10 (e), which provides:

This phrase is inserted into every research project agreement,
because like all research project, they are predicated on the
notion of reproducibility of the results.  If you get a NSF
grant for studying the mating habits of rabbits, you are subject
to the same requirement.

        The Cooperative Agreement was clearly intended to cover services to the
NSF for a definite, and limited, period of time. When the term of the Agreement
ends, as it will, the work done is to be replicated by another party, and the
Awardee, NSI, must enable the other party to take over.

It was *not* so intended.  Most project agreements crafted at that time
were part of a large composite programme of transferring functions
permanently to the private-sector.  The backbone and regional networks
went first.  Those were by far the largest assets, although major
software pieces like browsers were also involved.  The only functions
not so intended were those that remained with the "Internet NIC"
maintained by DISA.  This is amply confirmed by what ensued, by
material of record, and by the actual people involved in crafting
the policies.  I'm speaking first hand here.

        This cynical threat to destabilize and fracture the Internet puts in
perspective the statements of NSI consultants on this subject.

You jest.  It is IP addresses that get traffic to their
destinations, not overlay tagging systems like DNS.  The
Internet has long had multiple tagging systems, and always
will.  Check out http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/0809names.html
for some of the new ones in progress.  You can even give some
of the new alternatives a whirl by replacing your DNS server
cache file.  See www.superroot.com  Then you can use all of the
DNS space instead of the "fractured" portion you're just using now.

cheers,





--tony