At 09:06 PM 1/27/99 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
You don't have a clue what you are talking about with regard to NSI and I am
It's unfortunate to see that you are dealing with your frustrations by engaging in pure ad hominem attacks, and pointedly ignoring matters of content. As one who has far too much tendency to do the same, let me encourage you to take a deep breath and find a way to focus on issues and details, rather than on personalities.
Since you chose to include ALL of Kent's note, yet refer to none of it, let's try to discover what you might be objecting to.
First of all, you comment only on Kent's comments with respect to NSI.
That leaves open your assessment of the matters involving Cook's continuing effort to help NSI and hurt the development of true competition. (Yeah, I know, you see things differently, but I am noting that you did not respond to any of that portion of Kent's note.)
So with respect to Kent's references to NSI:
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.
Is there a matter of fact about NSI's responsibility that Kent got wrong?
[...]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
Kent cited a matter of fact. Are you claiming that the fact is incorrect? He stated the basis for the fact, so it would be helpful if you stated the basis for refuting it.
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.
Are you claiming that Kent is not, in fact, an expert in this topic and that his background is not extensive? Now THAT would be truly interesting to see you document.
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
Are you claiming that a committee chaired by NSI, with non-disclosure restrictions on its "advisors" and with no requirement that NSI pay any attention to the committee's comments is NOT toothless? If so, please elaborate.
Kent is far from the only one who sees this committee as a sham.
- 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
Are you claiming either that Kent (and the other advisors) did, in fact, get more time to process the NDA?
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
Kent says "I believe". That is not an assertion of fact, but rather one of second-hand knowledge. If he got it wrong, then what are the correct details?
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?
Well, now we are down to a matter entirely of opinion. On the other hand, the NSI agreement with the US Government stated the requirement that the committee be formed by December 1, 1998, so NSI is more than 6 weeks late. Given how strongly NSI makes claims that it is on an aggressive schedule, do you really believe it is unreasonable to point out the seriousness of this delay? An aggressive schedule requires keeping to milestones.
- 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.
And, as you have been careful to state publicly, NSI HAS been willing to expend funds for travel by others "contributing" to this process.
How curious that it made no such offer to help those with serious expertise, formally tasked with reviewing NSI's technical work.
- 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 individual invitees have, in fact, been kept isolated from each other. More precisely: No effort has been made to form them as a group during the stage Kent cites. If you wish to claim otherwise, please document it.
My own research has shown that Kent has the details exactly correct, so I'd be fascinated to hear data to the contrary.
- 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.
This assessment exactly matches the copy of the agenda that I saw. A day of presentations, including a tour of the NSI facility, and virtually no time for serious scrutiny.
For that matter, the idea that a meaningful technical review can be conducted in only one day is ludicrous, contributing fully to the assessment that this is nothing but a toothless dog and pony show.
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.
An explicit reference to NSI. So, Chuck, has there been, or will there be, meaningful review of your system? How are you going to get it and from whom? It's clear that this committee won't be providing it (and that the public won't have access to the details.)
Rather the continue to indulge in ad hominems, Chuck, how about responding to the content?
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave
Crocker
Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273
6464
675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
