> >What NSI has done is to feed at the government trough. And they did it
> >based on an existing service built by others. They can't even take the
> >credit for creating the service they now profit from.
>
> Dave, you don't know what you're talking about. The "existing service" you
> keep talking about barely existed at all.
"barely existed at all"? I beg to differ. SRI had a well running
operation under Jake Feinler that handled everything efficiently and with
a degree of friendlyness that isn't even in NSI's universe.
> When NSI was awarded the DDN
> contract for domain and IP registration back in 1991 there may have been a
> dozen requests for domains every week at most and those had to initially
> be manually processed because no automated system existed.
Everyone involved noted how when NSI took over, the quality of service
substantially declined.
In other words, NSI didn't bring anything new to the party. SRI could
have just as well ramped up its operations. In fact SRI had a substantial
advantage -- it could at least spell "computer" and "network".
> The incomplete database that was handed to NSI from SRI was totally
> screwed up.
So, you mean it is not screwed up now?
> The two engineers on staff worked day
> and night for weeks to get it in working condition.
That's the "cost" part of "cost+fee" that NSI was receiving.
No muss no fuss, no risk. Simply guaranteed profit.
So tell me, how much was the fee that NSI made on the salaries they were
paying those engineers?
And are you telling me that NSI went into the contract without knowing
what would be involved in doing the job?
> That you would even
> try to compare the service requirements between 1991 and now is laughable.
Nobody is making that comparision. Rather, we are pointing out that NSI
stepped into a set of well established shoes on a well lit path.
And even then NSI didn't have the guts to do it at a fixed rate, they did
it as cost+fee.
It wasn't until it was so clear that they could not lose money that NSI
asked NSF to change the fundamental rules of the contract.
> In 1993, NSI was awarded the InterNIC RS contract and domain registrations
> went through the roof
When the rate increased, NSI asked, and NSF granted, a change that would
increase NSI's profits, but not increase NSI's risk.
>, however, it was a good two years of some NSI staff
> working 18 hour days to manage the load before NSI was told to begin
> charging.
Two years in which NSI obtained the +fee on top of those those costs.
By-the-way, NSI wasn't "told to begin charging". Rather, NSI asked for
the change. It says so right there in the text of Amendment #4.
And we have been reassured by many that the reason why NSF didn't go out
for a rebid was that doing so would have taken many years.
So this two years, 1993-1995 you talk about must have been invisible to
NSF.
> If it hadn't been for SAIC buying NSI and pumping millions of
> dollars into the InterNIC (before the charging began) to upgrade the
> systems I don't know what would've happened because NSF wasn't about to do
> it and NSI didn't have the money.
NSI had a cost+fee contract. The government was obligated to provide the
money.
It was the fact that the goverment felt the stress of coming up with that
cash that made them give into NSI and grant the fee structure.
> Yes, NSI has been able to make up financially for all of that but I am sick
> and tired of you making it sound like the whole experience was a walk in
> the park and that NSI contributed nothing. NSI and its staff have paid
> their dues and they deserve at least a modicum of respect and credit.
"A walk in the park"? Well yes. It was NSI saying "stand and deliver" to
the Internet community while NSF stood by and made sure that no sheriff
would be wandering by.
I give a great deal of credit to NSI for being bold enough to bully NSF
into being nothing more than a dishrag, just as it is now doing to NTIA.
But that doesn't change the fact that NSI simply continued what SRI (and
others) had done before, even to the extent of copying software
interfaces, even to the extent of using record bases from its
predecessors, even to the extent of picking up the "customer" base from
the predecessors.
And it does not change the fact that NSI did this on an utterly risk free
basis - cost+fee -- in which the government guaranteed NSI a profit.
--karl--
