> In the context of the Network Solutions Cooperative Agreement, the
> creation of the whois database did not create a US government asset
> nor was it intended to do so.
Perhaps some people believe that. But the language of the document is
very clear - NSI was to perform a service, there were standards by which
the performance of that service was measured, there was a fee paid for the
performance of that service, and there is an explict provision for the
transfer of materials at the end of the contract/agreement so that a
sucessor could take over.
The words in the Cooperative Agreement read exactly like the words one
would use to say "administer my database".
There is an oral history that indicates that there may be some other
interpretation. But the contract/agreement is in writing and given the
formality of government contracting, it's going to take some doing to get
that oral history to overide the apparently clear language of the
contract/agreement.
> It wasn't intended for the primary (let alone "exclusive") benefit of
> the government. Such benefit was merely incidental.
That is extremely arguable. At the time the cooperative agreement was
made, the net was still largely focused on the US military and the
"military industrial complex". Certainly there was an ancillary benefit
beyond the government, but the money was paid to get a benefit for the
government. And that was made all the more clear in Amendment #4 when the
government let NSI take payment from non-goverment registrants and, in
return, give the government a free ride for its registrations. That was
100% for the government's benefit.
> it was intended
> for the benefit of the U.S. Research and education community that the
> NSF is chartered by Congress to serve. It absolutely is/was NOT a US
> government obligation to provide Internet registration in the first
> place. That's why a cooperative agreement, which is a "support"
> (***not "research"***) award vehicle was selected.
Cooperative Agreements are vehicles for the government to pay something of
value to private companies. That something of value is often called
"money".
Cooperative Agreements are used by many parts of the US Governemnt,
including the Bureau of Land Management, a group that is not particularly
engaged in "research".
Overall, the best we can say is that, in hindsight, the Cooperative
Agreement could have been better drafted. Should we blame those who wrote
it? We could, but we ought not to. It would be wrong to blame people for
not having perfect foresight.
So we're stuck with an ambiguity. It's going to take the full machinery
of a court proceeding, with full discovery and full presentation of all
the evidence, to come to an answer. And that process, which has not even
begun, will probably take several months or even years.
--karl--
