[wg-c] Notification to DOC/NTIA

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Eric,
If you are going to do this, you should post the original message as well.
Especially since you are including new players who didn't see the original.
I regret deeply that I wasn't able to spare the time for the annual ICANN
meeting, but I am planning the deployment of the largest e-commerce web-site
on the Internet, for 2Q2000 launch (4Gbps and 3.2TB), for a client. It is an
extremely ambitious and aggresive schedule.

My assertion, as you put it, claimed that there was no effective competition
to NSI and (much later) ICANN. I claimed that NSI was the only credible
bidder. Credibility via ability to actually do the job. Similarly, when
ICANN won the "competition" last year, it was due to the fact that the ICANN
was the only one left standing. The other players (notably ORSC) was neither
willing nor prepared to actually do the job ICANN had to do.

The first instance I have from reports, however I was directly involved in
the second instance and have first-hand information. Playing the role of
ICANN was not in the MHSC business plan at the time and ORSC had no other
resources to draw from. The BWG, a lose coalition of individuals, also could
not match the $600KUS funding that Esther had acquired. Although, as a
group, we could have done it (gathered the resources), the leadership at the
time, was lacking in "will". This left the ORSC as being not much more than
a paper tiger. Were I making the decision at the time, I would have made the
same one. DOC/NTIA was limited in its options at the time and a sub-optimal
decision was made. Sometimes a wrong decision is better than no decision.

Yes, I was a part of the IFWP and ORSC/BWG process and decried the decision
along with everyone else. That doesn't mean that I didn't understand the
practical reality behind it. Later, with full concurrance of the MHSC BoD,
MHSC was one of four protesters (three legitimately verifiable ones) to the
GIAC regarding that decision (MoU). After this January, MHSC remains the
sole protestor of standing (the others having fallen by the way-side). MHSC
operates <http://www.DNSO.NET>. MHSC is also operating within the available
framework and is a contributor to DNSO/WG-C and DNSO/WG-B. Indeed, MHSC is
the author of one of the most comprehensive position papers presented in
DNSO/WG-C <http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml>, a
plan/recommendation/proposal for a root-registry. This paper was written by
me and reviewed by my CTO (Dr. Jack Bosworth, Ph.D CS). Further enhancements
will be made and presented to the MHSC BoD this January, at the annual
meeting.

MHSC is still reviewing the SBA announcements and their relationship to the
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). It was my understanding that formal bid,
per FAR requirements, was to occur in 3Q2000 (per the MoU). MHSC still
intends to be involved at that time. MHSC has not yet analyzed the impact of
the SBA announcements with regards to the MoU.

MHSC is a Delaware Corporation, since 1997, for the purpose of pursuing
business opportunities on the Internet <http://www.mhsc.com/about.html>.
Personally, I am also a member of the Internet Society and work towards
those goals of a free Internet for everyone.



------------------------------------------
R O E L A N D  M. J. M E Y E R
CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc
President, MHSC-Systems
Chief Administrator, MHSC.NET
Operations Officer, DNSO.NET
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
925.373.3954

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric
> Brunner
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 7:04 PM
> To: rconnell@psi-japan.com
> Cc: jj@cse.ucsc.edu; wg-c@dnso.org; BBURR@ntia.doc.gov;
> krose@ntia.doc.gov; Mark_Bohannon@ta.doc.gov
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] NSI as a minority owned business.
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Roeland's assertion that the transfer of the NIC contract
> from SRI to GSI
> (later NSI) was not competitive is incorrect. Jake Feinler
> and Jose Garcia
> Luna were the heads of the NIC prior to, and after the award
> of contract.
> While I don't know where Jake is, Jose is at UCSC and cc'd
> (along with your
> original cc's Becky, Karen, and Mark, but not WG-C, the
> 2-per-day rule).
>
> Of course, getting Roeland or any of the "free marketeers"
> littering WG-C
> to play nice and not run with sissors is a lost cause.
>
> As you recollect, GSI was minority owned at the time of its
> bid. There is
> no claim to such status at present.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>