All,
I completely agree here with Kents assertions regarding NDA's
with respect to NSI and this situation. However I would caution
the NTIA with respect to Kent Crispin, as he is currently involved
is a CLOSED DNSO process and has been actively involved
in the past in "Capture" attempts of the DNS. So, I would therefore
conclude that any suggesting from Kent Crispin be viewed in
that light.
Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 06:30:30AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > NSI received the list of names just a few days before the
> > notice was sent to the members of the TAG, NOT "before
> > Christmas" as Kent suggested. We are continuing to work
> > toward the target date of March 31, 1999 so it is critical
> > that this activity occur quickly.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
>
> I was contacted some time before Dec 15 (Dec 15 is my first
> documented date); I said I would have to see the NDA; I was told my
> had been forwarded with the NDA caveat shortly thereafter. I
> periodically polled ICANN to see if they had heard anything. I was
> quite concerned about arranging the travel on short notice, because
> the meeting was originally scheduled for earlier in January,
> somewhere around the 11th, as I recall.
>
> It might be that the Dept of Commerce has been sitting on things
> -- I notice that David Graves letter stated that DoC provided the
> names to NSI, and it may well be that DoC is responsible for the
> delay.
>
> However, the delay is completely incidental to the main point, and is
> a minor aspect of a much larger problem, namely, that the "review" is
> almost entirely window dressing carefully set up to exclude any
> possible effective criticism.
>
> In fact, from my perspective the whole thing is rather surreal, and
> it seems to me that if DoC/DoJ want a true independent review of
> NSI's system they are simply going to have to do it some other way.
>
> "DoJ", because the technical content of such a review is secondary --
> designing a shared registry system is not a major job. The primary
> concern of any review, in my mind, is whether the system meets the
> standards of fair and equitable access for registrars that is
> mandated in the White Paper. In other words, whether the system
> meets certain policy constraints, including anti-trust concerns that
> will be of interest to DoJ. It would be quite easy, for example, for
> NSI to come up with a system with a great design from a technical
> point of view, but that funneled all registrations through WorldNIC.
>
> In general, the policy implications of a technical decision can
> sometimes be rather subtle. The best way by far to air such issues
> is to have open discussion -- we all know that. It is absolutely
> amazing that NSI's legal team managed to bamboozle the DoC
> negotiators into allowing NSI to consider the registry-registrar
> protocol as proprietary intellectual property.
>
> The obvious quality of that legal team is one of the reasons why I am
> very hesitant to sign an NDA with NSI, of course. But there is a
> more fundamental problem with the whole approach -- the use of NDAs in
> a independent review context is fundamentally flawed:
>
> Non-disclosure agreements are useful when EACH PARTY HAS SOMETHING TO
> GAIN by the private sharing of information. I have signed several in
> the past, where it was to my benefit (or my employers benefit) to see
> the information, and it was in the vendor or other parties interest
> to let me see it.
>
> But in this case NSI really has absolutely nothing to gain by the
> sharing of information, and potentially a lot to lose. In fact, NSI
> has a lot to gain by NOT sharing the information -- that's the whole
> significance of considering it protected intellectual property.
>
> And, contrary to Cook's raving, though I personally would sign the
> NDA, I personally have nothing to gain, and potentially my total
> personal net worth to lose. The party who has something to gain here
> is DoC, not me.
>
> The only valid point of the review mentioned in amendment 11 would be
> to find out what might be WRONG with the system -- a rubber stamp
> review is a total waste of time for all concerned. And under the
> current circumstances the NDA is a delightful legal tool that could
> be used to bludgeon any critical review into silence.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
