Re: [wg-c] NSI as a minority owned business.

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Excuse me, Eric, but do you have something constructive to contribute?



On 07-Nov-99 Eric Brunner wrote:
> I'd really miserable connectivity yesterday evening, an artifact of the
> high winds from a nor'easter and its affects on the local ISP. I didn't
> add myself to the cc'd (highly uncharacteristic) and failed to delete
> wg-c from the cc'd (going over the 2-per-day rule). Sigh.
> 
> On the bright side Roeland I didn't let the initial phrase "chucklehead"
> survive. I was writing to a friend, someone who doesn't need to know
> anything about you. Intent however didn't exactly match effect.
> 
> John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 
>       NSI won (a long time ago) a competitive bid to run com/net/org
>       where at the end of that bid, everything would be returned to
>       NSF. NSI has fought a quite succesful fight to manage to hang in
>       there despite the odds, outwitting a lot of attempts to get the
>       thing re-bid on a competitive basis at the end of the term.
> 
> You (Roeland) replied quoting this specific text:
> 
>       Got news for you, NSI won that bid by default. Who was bidding
>       against them?
> 
> Now you can expand on your initial assertion that the initial bidding
> process which resulted in the transfer of the NIC contract to GSI, now
> NSI, was non-competitive by a variety of means. You and I more or less
> coverd that on the previous one when you made a remarkable claim:
> 
>       NSI was started by academics and scientists...
> 
> I'm personally disinterested in how you go about this, the simplist
> way, admission of error, appears to be out of the question. 
> 
> Doing the point-by-point
> para #1
> 1. mail ettiquette - go bother Bob, who wrote the follow-up, he didn't
>    clutter up a question with your prose, I didn't think it up to the
>    worth reading twice test either.
> 2. ICANN and your job - not relevant
> para #2
> 3. looks as if you want to collapse the 10 years between the event
>    Broomfield wrote about, and your reply. Takes handwaving as we are
>    dealing with the perennial "for-profit must.must.must prevail"
>    lemmings-in-heat question, but feel free to make any claim about the
>    legal character of current events -- just about anything flies.
> paras #3 & 4
> 4. i don't actually discern a point, just a narrative that leaves you
>    the last man standing holding the plan that for all I know, the NC
>    and ICANN Board are simply dying to read.
> para #5
> 5. not relevant except to the narrative of the prior paras
> para #6
> 6. not relevant
> 
> I hope your writing such a long, and oddly constucted letter serves some
> useful purpose, but you'd get less exercise if you'd simply stop writing
> NIC History by Dummies.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934