>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 23:40:36 -0700 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: What alternative is there to NSI? > >At 10:11 PM 6/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > >>The reason it occurred at all is that it is their code that is being >>used. ICANN should have rejected the use of such proprietary code in >>favour of open-source. That they didn't do that condemns the >>organization. > > >From 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741 at 31,747 - 8 (June 4, 1998): > > "The U. S. Government expects NSI to agree to act in a manner >consistent with this policy statement, including recognizing the >role of the new corporation to establish and implement DNS >policy and to establish terms (including licensing terms) >applicable to new and existing gTLD registries under which >registries, registrars and gTLDs are permitted to operate. >Further, the U. S. Government expects NSI to agree to make >available on an ongoing basis appropriate databases, software, >documentation thereof, technical expertise, and other intellectual >property for DNS management and shared registration of domain >names." > >Bill Lovell >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >>> Behalf Of Darrell Greenwood >>> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 8:08 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: What alternative is there to NSI? >>> >>> >>> At 3:16 AM -0700 6/3/99, Ken Stubbs wrote: >>> >>> >if you can get me released from the severly restrictive NSI >>> >"non-disclosure" agreement i had to sign >>> >>> I find the ability of NSI to place this process under >>> "non-disclosure" profoundly disturbing. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Darrell >>> >>> -- >>> Darrell Greenwood mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Vancouver, BC http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/ >>>
