Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing

[Richard J. Sexton]

At 08:48 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> Anyway, there are merits on both sides of the see-saw.  (I still see the
>> balance as being that NSI was merely admistering a government database.
>> But its a balance that apparently others who were close to the situation
>> at the time of the formation of the Cooperative Agreement see otherwise.)
>>
>>                 --karl--
>
>Another interesting research issue is whether it was a government asset in the first
>place.  It wasn't exclusively for the benefit of the government since plenty of
>non-governmental parties were also using it.  Even if you take the approach that it
>was an administrative task, and not research, it isn't clear that the government ever
>had any obligation to perform the task in the first place.

Well, to paraphrase Churchill, they may not own it but they owned it
more than anybody else did. Plus they paid for it.

If they *didn't* own it and it belonged to the Internet community - the
only other viable candidate, then the USG can step out right now. :-)


--
Richard Sexton  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net    http://www.mbz.org    http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada,  70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD   +1 (613) 473-1719