[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 -----
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 -----
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