Re: CLINTON ADMINSITRATION TO ESTABLISH PUBLIC AUTHORITY (NEW IANA CORP.) TO RUN INTERNET

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

A>(1.) The decision of an agency of US Government to pursue the destruction
>of a private business, to the point of nationalizing 80% of their
>operations (the percentage is the amount of income provided by .com, org.
>and .net registration. 


In the case, Data Concepts Inc. v. Digital Consulting Inc. and Network
Solutions Inc., No. 3-96-0429 (M.D. Tenn. filed May 8, 1996), NSI argued
that its dispute resolution policy was not reviewable by a court because
NSI was in effect part of the Executive branch. 

And now that contract is coming to an end, as NSI absolutely positively
knew it was going to.

Is this one of those cases where if you keep using the word "nationalizing"
it becomes true?

It just doesn't matter whether NSI, Magaziner, the USG, IANA, Jon Postel,
ARIN, the CIA, or whoever, have been good, bad, foolish, negligent,
arrogant, open, closed or whatever - the Internet community is simply not
bound by any equities based on interpretations of the past five years, and
the past thousands of years before that.  There are no binding contracts
after Oct. 7 affecting the gTLDs.  It is a clean slate.

special note to Jim Fleming - the above comments refer to IPv.8 as well.












While NTIA has embarked on such a course, in the
>opinion of another agency of the US Government, namely the NSF, the
>destruction of NSI's business was not justifiable.  I have explained above
>why this is the case.
>
>(2.) I cannot sit comfortably with the naked power that the US government
>is using to destroy such a business.  Power exercised in camera, with no
>justification other than NSI "has a monopoly which it should not have" and
>"we are going to divest them." Especially when the US government does this
>in such a manner as to deprive smaller US firms (which clearly do not have
>a monopoly) of any and all legal property rights which they may have.
>
>Ira made clear the "official" rationale to me for the first time in an
>interview in July.  I am not persuaded by the depth of his argument which
>does not show why the NSF decision to end the NSI award a year early was in
>error.  If I am going to sign on to the "get NSI posse," it will be only
>when I am shown evidence that the NSF process that I have just outlined was
>erroneous and that the policies being pursued in camera against NSI by the
>White House are fair.  I have not seen such evidence.  If it exists and I
>am shown it I could possibly change my mind.
>
>You may remember that in the spring of 97, when Tony Rutkowski and Barbara
>Dooley were after the scalp of IAHC, POC, CORE etc, I demurred from
>attacking IAHC, POC and CORE.  Indeed, I did not make my mind up until last
>September-October 97, by which time, I had come to understand the issues
>much better and had an opportunity to watch the IAHC/POC/CORE behavior and
>be repelled by it.
>
>I am fiercely independent.  But I also take stands and take sides when I
>see the little guys being shafted and the big guys using their power behind
>closed doors to get their way.  Up until this post there have been folk who
>considered me to be a shill for Ira Magaziner.  I guess now they will
>change their tune.  I call them as I see them. Have since April 1992. Since
>I have no advertisers I can afford to do this. I have taken stands before.
>I am taking a stand now.  Independence without taking a stand in the face
>of an egregious display of governmental power is not, in my book, a virtue.
>
>(3.)  Secrecy.  If commerce has such a strong case against NSI let it go
>public.  If NTIA really is so sure of its position vis-a-vis NSI let it
>state its case and publish its terms.  The only consistant goal in NTIA's
>position has been a desire to punish NSI.  This is a privately conducted
>mugging conducted in camera by the feds against a company that is certainly
>not loved and is certainly far from perfect, but a company that has done
>nothing to merit such treatment.  Throughout my seven years of publication
>I have had above all else the credo of openness.  To the extent that the
>internet's business is done behind closed doors I have consistently put in
>the public domain what information I receive when, in my opinion, a more
>powerful entity is using its power against a weaker entity and doing so
>behind locked doors to which the public has no access.  In this case my
>mission is to bring into the public light that information those processes
>which have purposefully been kept from public scrutiny.
>
>To conclude:  I do my damnedest to keep an open mind.  Between 1992 and 94
>I was a royal pain in the ass to the NSF.  I have learned a helluva lot
>since 1994 and I am surprised that I am not accused of being an NSF shill
>as well as an Ira shill.  But gosh! Let me put your mind at rest..... Not
>only have I never done any work for NSF, including uncompensated work....
>those "so and sos" have never even expressed an interest in subscribing to
>my newsletter - let alone actually paying for one.
>
>Gordon
>
>***************************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet            New Special Report: Building Internet
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  Infrastructure ($395) available. See
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)
http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
>cook@cookreport.com                    Index to 6 years of COOK Report,
how to
>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at
http://www.cookreport.com
>***************************************************************************
>
>
>-- 
>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>
>
>