On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 06:30:30AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> NSI received the list of names just a few days before the
> notice was sent to the members of the TAG, NOT "before
> Christmas" as Kent suggested. We are continuing to work
> toward the target date of March 31, 1999 so it is critical
> that this activity occur quickly.
>
> Chuck Gomes
I was contacted some time before Dec 15 (Dec 15 is my first
documented date); I said I would have to see the NDA; I was told my
had been forwarded with the NDA caveat shortly thereafter. I
periodically polled ICANN to see if they had heard anything. I was
quite concerned about arranging the travel on short notice, because
the meeting was originally scheduled for earlier in January,
somewhere around the 11th, as I recall.
It might be that the Dept of Commerce has been sitting on things
-- I notice that David Graves letter stated that DoC provided the
names to NSI, and it may well be that DoC is responsible for the
delay.
However, the delay is completely incidental to the main point, and is
a minor aspect of a much larger problem, namely, that the "review" is
almost entirely window dressing carefully set up to exclude any
possible effective criticism.
In fact, from my perspective the whole thing is rather surreal, and
it seems to me that if DoC/DoJ want a true independent review of
NSI's system they are simply going to have to do it some other way.
"DoJ", because the technical content of such a review is secondary --
designing a shared registry system is not a major job. The primary
concern of any review, in my mind, is whether the system meets the
standards of fair and equitable access for registrars that is
mandated in the White Paper. In other words, whether the system
meets certain policy constraints, including anti-trust concerns that
will be of interest to DoJ. It would be quite easy, for example, for
NSI to come up with a system with a great design from a technical
point of view, but that funneled all registrations through WorldNIC.
In general, the policy implications of a technical decision can
sometimes be rather subtle. The best way by far to air such issues
is to have open discussion -- we all know that. It is absolutely
amazing that NSI's legal team managed to bamboozle the DoC
negotiators into allowing NSI to consider the registry-registrar
protocol as proprietary intellectual property.
The obvious quality of that legal team is one of the reasons why I am
very hesitant to sign an NDA with NSI, of course. But there is a
more fundamental problem with the whole approach -- the use of NDAs in
a independent review context is fundamentally flawed:
Non-disclosure agreements are useful when EACH PARTY HAS SOMETHING TO
GAIN by the private sharing of information. I have signed several in
the past, where it was to my benefit (or my employers benefit) to see
the information, and it was in the vendor or other parties interest
to let me see it.
But in this case NSI really has absolutely nothing to gain by the
sharing of information, and potentially a lot to lose. In fact, NSI
has a lot to gain by NOT sharing the information -- that's the whole
significance of considering it protected intellectual property.
And, contrary to Cook's raving, though I personally would sign the
NDA, I personally have nothing to gain, and potentially my total
personal net worth to lose. The party who has something to gain here
is DoC, not me.
The only valid point of the review mentioned in amendment 11 would be
to find out what might be WRONG with the system -- a rubber stamp
review is a total waste of time for all concerned. And under the
current circumstances the NDA is a delightful legal tool that could
be used to bludgeon any critical review into silence.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
