Re: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating NSI

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Charles Broomfield writes:

> > > Indeed, the fact that NSF approved fees contains an implicit statement
> > > that there is a contact database upon which the contractor, NSI, can
> > > administer to process renewals. 
> > 
> > Yes, and? Does it say this must be handed over?
                               ^^^^ 

> Actually yes... The initial cooperative agreement which NSI won
> states:

> The final report shall contain a description of all
> work performed and problems encountered (and if requested a copy
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>           and documentation of any and all software and data generated) in
> such form and sufficient detail as to permit replication of the work
>           by a reasonably knowledgeable party or organization. 

That's hardly *MUST* hand over.

And "data *GENERATED*" will feed a regiment of laywers' families.

> Check the agreements before throwing your statements around wrt
> NSI. 

Check the agreements yourself before throwing your statements around with
regards to NSI, please.

> Note however that AFAIK, no ccTLD has *ANY* agreements with the NSF
> to run that ccTLD which actually puts us all in quite a delicate
> position anyway.

Nonsense. 

el