At 02:33 PM 2/26/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>knew did not have funding. My criteria were as follows: (1)
>people who were actively involved in the relevant
>discussions on the lists I monitored (Domain-Policy and
>IFWP); (2) people who appeared to be objective in their
>analysis of issues; (3) people who appeared to favor a free
>market type approach rather than a regulated approach; and
>(4) people who needed funding. In each case it was someone
Chuck,
I hope that you can appreciate the considerable irony in having a company
whose substantial business is as a monopoly, granted and protected by a
government, offer itself as a promoter of free market values. The irony is
enhanced by the fact that NSI's interest in competition has curiously
continued to be delayed for years.
It is probably worth noting that NSI chose to take no part in the public
discussions for the IAHC work, although it did, of course, make frequent
public comments of interest in supporting the process.
I further hope that there is an opportunity for independent review of the
nature and style of the contributions made by those NSI funded, to see just
how objective they were. You won't be surprised if I comment that I
believe the result will not substantiate your criterion.
And lastly, I think it curious that NSI's interest in openness is
confounded by the fact that it does not document its relationships with
those 'active' in the topic. For example, those with an affilition to
POC/CORE are well-known, whereas we have yet to see NSI or folks like
Fenello and Rutkowski publicly acknowledge that they have a relationship
with NSI.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
