>Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:05:32 -0800 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Page) >Subject: RE: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >David, you want to know what this is all about? If you didn't know this >already, remember the source of Kent's comments: > >Kent, by day, works for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), >which is a facility managed under contract by the University of California, >providing staff and facilities to the U.S. Government's Department of >Energy primarily, and other U.S. government agencies too. The word >"private" has no meaning in this world, because it is all >"government-funded" and nothing "private" exists. The rights of >individuals to own ANY intellectual property DO NOT EXIST in this >environment. All individual rights are checked at the guard-gate. I >invite anyone to come on over and visit. Kent can't have visitors because >one has to be invited, and have clearance, or be escorted. Everything >revolves around "the government". People are "used" by the government at >LLNL. > >LLNL is one of the most command-and-controlled organizations, beginning >with its relationship to the Secretary of Energy and its Director's Office, >and rippling down through the various Directorates (Engineering, >Computations, Biomedical, etc., etc.) It provides a necessary service to >the U.S. Government during periods where we are mobilized for war or >potential war, because of its emphasis on nuclear arms, testing, >verification, etc., but LLNL is a hungry beast constantly searching for >more funding to pay for its 7000+ staff and its Billion Dollar budget, >during periods of peace and prosperity. The beast has a huge appetite for >funding. > >When you see Kent writing about NSI's funding and influencing, Kent is >applying the insight which comes from those who work for an arm of the U.S. >government and their need to constantly lobby to continue to feed their >beast. Kent represents in the flesh, the military industrial complex that >Eisenhower warned about, up close and personal. By applying his >political/survival skills to a new domain which he hopes will be his new >source of government funding he embeds himself deeper into potential >funding derived from ICANN's proposed "taxes". That's how it works inside >of the world of U.S. Government contracting. Follow the money and you'll >see that in Kent's world, the scent only comes from one source, the U.S. >Government. ICANN represents another source for Kent, but it is not >because of any increase in SLD.TLD inventory, but because he has aligned >himself with the entities trying to control the resources. > >The entrenched wall-like responses which you witness when you read Kent's >posts are the psychological games played by someone who lives within the >walls of a fortress which is its own insulated world, which views the >"outsiders" as serfs, or worse yet, slaves from whom revenues flow, and >little else. it is a very insular world where politics like Kent's >wordsmanship and dismissalship are all in a day's work. There's always a >method and a purpose, and they are always seeking another purpose to >justify hiring more staff, buying more computers, managing more FTEs. >That's how it works inside of the world of U.S. Government contracting. > >If I know the prototype (and I don't know Kent), this is just an educated >guess, Kent is very intelligent, secure because he has a job for life as >long as LLNL has a role to play for the Dept of Energy, but to advance >within the hierarchy he needs to keep seeking new sources of funding, and >the technical aspects of the DNS is something of a pet project of his, >since he's positioned himself within the engineering community of something >of a technical expert and a point-person for the "command and control" >viewpoint. > >My bet is that he has support from within this management hierarchy to >pursue this process with a vengeance, because it will bring more technical >and operational management responsibility to his organization. He's >probably already written "White Papers" and circulated them within the >directorate and has "buy-in" from within. (If not, I would be surprised.) >LLNL would view the DNSO.org / ITU relationships as something that could >combine LLNL's science and research expertise with the ITU's >standards-making as a sort of perverse bureaucratic "win-win". > >As an embedded component within the body of a voracious gobbler of >resources, Kent is embedding himself within potentially DNSO, therefore >within ICANN, and through the contracting process which is being managed by >NIST, potentially within the "sole-source awardee" (ICANN) of the NTIA/NIST >contract. > >This may not be true, but my educated hunch is that it is more true than >not. The circular arrangements, all derived from government contracting >are so incestuous that it is clear that it is not beyond the imagination to >recognize that Kent's "offense" against NSI's dealings are really the >Dallas Cowboys' old strategy, "the best defense is a good offense". He's >deflecting attention away from the role that he is playing in creating a >part of an unaccountable ICANN structure (BMW proposal), which is already >highly suspect in its appointment of unelected, unrepresentative Board >members whose interests are their own and those of their employers. > >Always consider the source... > >Steve >T: 925-454-8624 > > > > > >>This is getting ridiculous. >> >>At the end of the process of privatization of the DNS, how could you *not* >>end up with private control of TLDs? (gTLDs, anyway) >> >>Maybe someday someone will explain what the hell this is really about >>instead of hiding behind factional code words. >> >>David Schutt >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent >>Crispin >>Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 1:28 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton >> >> >>On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:14:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Kent, >>> >>> Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN? >> >>The precise definition of "antagonist" is completely unimportant. >>The real issue is that NSI, a government contractor, has funded >>participation of other parties who support a key NSI position >>(private control of TLDs). >> >>Given that the activity under discussion has direct relevance to DOC >>oversight of NSI, and that NSI is a government contractor, I think >>these under the table payments by NSI are quite significant. And >>they certainly give an insight into the ethics of the NSI management. >> >>-- >>Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > > -- "How gratifying for once to know... that those up above will serve those down below" - S. Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719 Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
