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

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

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