John and all, Again respectfully I disagree with this evaluation. ICANN could have but did not insist on the SRS code to be open-source code. After all it basis was developed under the IETF, was it not? The fact that the ICANN did not do this is indicative of their lack of understanding and therefore responsible leadership. John B. Reynolds wrote: > Amendment 11 specifically requires NSI to develop the SRS software. It also > calls for a "confidentiality agreement" between NSI and NewCo. It's NTIA > who dropped the ball on this one, not ICANN. ICANN won't be in a position > to correct the mistake until September 2000. > > Roeland M.J. Meyer 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. > > > > > -----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/ > > > > > 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
