[10541] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: NSB Meeting (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Humphrey)
Sat Feb 26 19:45:57 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 17:35:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Doug Humphrey <digex@ss1.digex.net>
Reply-To: Doug Humphrey <digex@ss1.digex.net>
To: com-priv@psi.com
>Sheesh Ross.... why not let the good Dr. Wolff defend his own actions?
>You argument seems dreadfully stretched to me. The public didn't get a
>fair chance to attend so we'll cancel the advertised public session and
>deprive those two or 3 hardy souls who did come of their rightful window
>into what we are doing.
Not that I want to take any sides on this, but Ross is absolutely
correct. If the government has advertised a session as being
open, it MUST afford adequite access to the session. Example;
if they suddenly can not have the session for some reason, they
can not change it to the next day. They have to change it to
something far enough out that they can advertise the changes,
and thus meet the requirement that they give the public "reasonable"
notice and opportunity to attend. I know that this is the procedure
that some agencies under the Defense Department have to follow; I
am pretty sure that this is not just a DoD rule...
Now, if they just blow off the public meeting, and take a decision
without rescheduling it, THEN you have something to gripe about.
Their failure to hold a meeting for the few die hards that managed
to get through the ice is reasonable; if they had gone ahead and
held the meeting, certain groups representing the handicapped
would have an excelent case that their clients had not been afforded
reasonable access.
Gordon, you were in the government; surely you have run into regs
like this!
> Mmmmmmmm.....this action protects the public
>interest eh?
see above...
> What are they gonna do Ross.. reschedule and bring the NSB
>back into town next week for a replacement meeting, or are you saying the
>public interest can be protected the NEXT time around when in 3 months
>the board meets again??
They should bring the board back together, or delay the decisions and
awards until the next time that the board is together and the public can
be given access. Of course, the flaw here is that there is most likely
no REQUIREMENT for public hearings, in which case they can simply say
that they were trying to be nice with the public hearings, but it didn't
work out, so they have decided not to be nice anymore...
>Now as to my "wild speculation".... Barrnet will NOT provide the
>California NAP, PacBell very likely will. Check and see that I said I
>was not 100% sure on that one. Other than that I'd say that so far my
>predictions are holding up pretty well.
Thus far, you are on time on target. Is MCI free to sub contract to
ANS for things? I wonder if they will or if ANS will really get pushed
into the background as NetworkMCI starts feeling its oats...
Your questions about AT&T offering to do it for free are certainly
onces that someone better address; 50 megabucks buys a lot even today.
If someone offered to do it for free, and was turned down, I would say
that it needs to be checked out.
Doug
