[1701] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: A minor correction to Bill Schrader's communique
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Schoffstall)
Wed Dec 11 15:55:44 1991
In-Reply-To: <9112101906.AA25920@thor.oar.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:59:19 -0400
To: alison@oar.net
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, members@farnet.org
From: "Martin Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
Reply-To: schoff@psi.com
No correction is needed in this area....
I believe this meeting was to be the official spin control for the
problems that keep coming to the surface with the "secret
privitization"; however, it doesn't work because:
(1) per the letters posted the "decision" was made well before this
meeting, in fact instead of combits being invented there, they were
undoubtedly pre-packaged fluff for everyone to snack on. Just got to
watch the after taste......
(2) the meeting was "invitation only" and was held at the
combit factory in Elsmford, invitation only by Elmsford.
One would normally want national policy decisions to be discussed
somewhat openly at a NSF meeting possibly at NSF itself. Important
(possibly self important) constiuencies were not invited like PSI, but
more importantly and more seriously where was the International Participation?
Nice Try Though.
Marty
--------
>DATE: Tue, 10 Dec 91 14:06:52 -0500
>FROM: alison@oar.net
>
>In looking over carefully the material Bill obtained from the NSF
>and so thoughtfully shared with all of us, I would like to make a
>correction (or perhaps just a modification) to what he said. The
>second document in his communique, a memo from Steve to Eric
>outlining the terms under which the NSF would allow commercial traffic
>to flow across NSFNET gateways, bears a remarkable resemblance to the
>recommendations that came out of a meeting between NSF, ANS, Merit and
>quite a large number of FARNET members, of which I was one. While I
>don't know that Steve took the advice of that group, it certainly is
>a remarkable coincidence if he arrived at the same terms himself.
>
>It was in that (in)famous meeting that COMBITS were invented, and
>that network number was chosen to be the determinant of whether traffic
>was commercial or not, and the National Infrastructure Pool and the
>mechanisms for is disbursement were suggested. So I, and the others
>at that meeting whom I shall not name, all bear some share of the
>blame, if blame there be, for all these things. ANS took our advice,
>and we have ever since reminded ourselves that you have to be very
>very careful what you wish for, because you might get it. What ANS
>got was a bucket of you-know-what on their heads for taking our
>advice and I notice they have been more careful about asking for
>advice since. It was a very lively meeting, and while I could
>characterize it in a number of ways, I don't think "subtle" would be
>among them, and if NSF and ANS went off in a corner and plotted at
>least the things named above, they were not alone in the corner and
>a very large segment of the NSFNET community was in on the plot.
>
>So having seen what kind of trouble ANS got into by taking advice,
>let me be the last to give Bill any advice on how to conduct himself
>toward potential customers like the NSF - I assume PSI does intend
>to respond to the new Solicitation for NSFNET services?
