>On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 01:29:39PM -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
>[...]
> >
> > Regardless of whether predicting load is difficult or not, this was
> > something that was a part of the contract from the beginning.
> > Government contractors generally must abide by the terms of their
> > contract, even if it is difficult. That is a part of the risk of
> > doing business. Poor planning is rarely an excuse.
>
>Irrelevant. The contract in question is basically for a joint research
>project. This experience and the ensuing study will shed a lot of
>light on the difficulties of doing such a thing -- from the point of
>view of research, this is a completely successful result...
The White Paper was hardly a "research project," Kent. More than one
bid was made for this contract. If ICANN can't perform, perhaps it
should be put up for bids once again, the way other government
contracts are run. Representation was called for. Representation is
not being provided. This should be fixed, or the contract should go
to someone else. Complaints of lack of funding or inadequate
timeframe are irrelevant to nonperformance of a contract.
ICANN has done some things quickly that have far reaching effect on
the rights of individuals and small businesses to use the Internet.
This was done without representation of the very groups who have been
disproportionately impacted. Now, "technological roadblocks" have
caused the same entity charged with "technical management of the
Internet" to exclude people who wish to participate. This is a
situation that should be remedied prior to any more major decisions
being undertaken.
I'm sure that Akamai, IBM, MCI, and other corporate interests
represented on the Board would quickly come up with a solution if
they were told that if they did not, the contract would be rebid.
