At 06:59 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>This wasn't directed towards me but I will put my comments in anyway.
>
>You have it straight. This situation is okay because NSI's function is to
>perform a task under specifications outlined in a cooperative agreement or
>other contract. NSI's input is via this mechanism. If NSI hires a
>contractor to set up their internal network should this company get a seat
>on NSI's board?
>
>I don't think NSI should be completely excluded from representation.
Well I do, for the reasons you outline below. The fox has been in the
chicken coop long enough.
Bill Lovell
>However, if an argument is to made to exclude anyone NSI would be high on
>the list due to the conflict of interest situations that arise with the fact
>that NSI has control of the registry and that NSI offers ancillary services.
>The fact that NSI's business future depends on decisions made by
>policy-making bodies that may oversee the system in the future is an
>internal NSI problem. I suggest NSI look into ways of diversifying.
>
>Russ Smith
>http://domainia.org
>
>
>>John,
>
>>Let me see if I get this straight. It's okay for ICANN to establish
>>policies that affect the NSI Registry even if the NSI registry has no
>>representation?
>
>>Chuck
>
