Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer

2000-04-12 Thread Karl Auerbach
For the historians: Do people realize that it wasn't even in the budget to have the 14 of us handling in-addrs, ip allocation/assignment, SWIP, all of the domain name issues and answer the phones in early 1995? The whole registration process/budget was not designed for vanity-tagging the

Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer

2000-04-12 Thread Ellen Rony
Just to keep the record straight, it was Amendment 4 (September 13, 1995), not Amendment 11, that changed the Cooperative Agreement from cost + fixed fee to a structure that allowed the collection of fees from registrants. Amendment 11 (October 7, 1998) extended the Cooperative Agreement through

Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer

2000-04-12 Thread Gordon Cook
It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were part of the initial InterNIC, received no flack for notholding up their portion of the Cooperative Agreement. Maybe ATT did some work but their Annual Report of, I believe 1996 didn't even mention that role. Ellen

Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer

2000-04-12 Thread Ellen Rony
I meant industry flak; flak like we all have given NSI. I understood that GA didn't uphold it's end of the Agreement went quietly into the good night rarely to be spoken of again. At least NSI stayed the course. It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were part