Re: [ifwp] Re: NSI Technical Advisory Group: once again ICANN st acks the deck

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all,

  Chuck, don't take Kent too seriously, he really doesn't know what he
is talking about most of the time.  Most people on these lists don't take
Kent seriously either.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Kent,
>
> You don't have a clue what you are talking about with regard to NSI and I am
> starting to suspect you would rather make inaccurate accusations rather than
> know the facts so I am not going to say any more than to say you are flat
> out WRONG.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Crispin [SMTP:kent@songbird.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 2:13 AM
> > To:   IFWP Discussion List
> > Subject:      [ifwp] Re: NSI Technical Advisory Group:  once again ICANN
> > stacks the deck
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 08:50:06PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Since Dyson and Roberts in the Stealth MODE of Operation chose not to
> > > introduce the Technical Advisory Group to the net, I will do the honors
> > for
> > > them. The Technical Advisory Group will comment on and participate in
> > the
> > > testing of Network Solutions' Shared Registration System.  (Remember
> > > Esther's lottery?)  looks to me like Esther and Mike have stacked the
> > deck.
> > > Should we be surprised?  nope.  Would be nice if Esther would do us the
> > > only of explaining how this open, public and transparent process was
> > > carried out.
> >
> > Given that, according to amendment 11 it is NSI's responsibility to
> > set up the TAG, and ICANN only had the ability to propose names,
> > yes, it is very interesting how this process was carried out.  I
> > will describe it below.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > pat@swip.net in many search engines yielded nothing
> >
> > Interesting -- this rather strongly narrows down your source, because
> > this misspelled mail address was on a message that David Graves
> > mailed to a rather small group.  So it was either someone at NSI that
> > gave you this, or one of that small group.
> >
> > Care to comment on who sent you got a copy of that email?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > and Kent Crispin of the MOUvement.  Passionate POC, CORE MoU advocate.
> > > Most interested in casting doubt on everyone else's moves.  Hard to find
> > a
> > > more biased guy around.(PAB)?
> >
> > I have been involved in the design of shared registry systems and
> > their protocols for quite some time.  I have designed and implemented
> > a prototype for one, was technical editor of the CORE SRS
> > requirements document, and edited the ietf draft for the shared
> > registry system working group.  Objectively speaking, I have genuine
> > expertise in the area.
> >
> > But you needn't worry, Gordon -- NSI is quite capable of defending
> > itself without your lapdog "journalism":
> >
> >   - The TAG is toothless.  The language from amendment 11 is to
> >   "comment on the design of and participate in the testing of" NSI's
> >   system.  There is nothing that says that NSI has to pay any
> >   attention whatsoever to those comments.
> >
> >   - In order to participate you have to sign a non-disclosure
> >   agreement with NSI, and that NDA is a relatively broad and fierce
> >   document.  It basically gives NSI a license to take you to court if
> >   you say a single public word about their system.  That is, if you
> >   sign it you run a risk of NSI forcing you into bankruptcy with legal
> >   costs, more or less at their whim, and regardless of any validity of
> >   their claim.
> >
> >   - The meeting was set up for January 28 (in 4 days), and the
> >   invitation, with the NDA, was sent out just a few days ago.  That
> >   doesn't leave a great deal of time to get a lawyer to review the
> >   NDA, and arrange the travel.  I don't know when the other TAG
> >   members were asked if they would like to participate, but I believe
> >   the names were given to NSI before Christmas.  Given that this
> >   review was required as a part of amendment 11, and thus known for
> >   quite some time, it has taken NSI a rather long time to get in
> >   touch with the invitees, wouldn't you say?
> >
> >   - Several of the invited participants are overseas, and there is no
> >   funding for them to participate in this exercise -- they pay their
> >   own way.  This is despite the fact that amendment 11 mandates that
> >   NSI should create the group.
> >
> >   - Absolutely no details were known before the belated invitation
> >   was sent -- I didn't know who any of the others were until I got
> >   the letter from Mr Graves, just like you.  (In fact, I asked ICANN
> >   about this a couple of times, and they said they had heard nothing,
> >   either.) Therefore the group has absolutely no chance to discuss or
> >   think about how the "review" might take place.
> >
> >   - The agenda for the one day meeting is purely a dog and pony show
> >   -- NSI will give a series of presentations describing the system,
> >   and their plans for testing.  At the end of the day there is an
> >   hour and fifteen minute slot for "open discussion".  That is the
> >   extent of the review.
> >
> > The real interesting thing here, Gordon, the thing that any real
> > journalist would notice instantly, is how adroitly NSI has managed to
> > block any meaningful review of their system.
> >
> > Here's the reply I sent to Mr Graves:
> >
> > >Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:00:19 -0800
> > >From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> > >To: "Graves, Dave" <daveg@netsol.com>
> > >Subject: Re: Technical Advisory Group
> > >
> > >Dear Mr. Graves
> > >
> > >I recieved the package from FedEx -- Thank you.  I have read the
> > >NDA very closely, and consulted with an attorney concerning it.  I
> > >have been advised that it would not be in my best interest to sign
> > >the NDA.  In fact, I have consulted with a total of 4 attorneys on
> > >the matter, and all have counseled me at the minimum to approach
> > >this with extreme caution.
> > >
> > >So, unfortunately, I must respectfully decline to participate in
> > >the TAG.
> > >
> > >Thanks for your consideration.
> > >
> > >Kent Crispin
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                               "Do good, and you'll
> > be
> > kent@songbird.com                             lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > To receive the digest version instead, send a
> > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
> >
> > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
> >
> > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> > ___END____________________________________________
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208