[9681] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Some Thoughts on The National Science Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Sun Jan 16 13:34:16 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 10:32:23 PST
In-Reply-To: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
To: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Hans Werner says: Gee, Gordon, is there anyone on earth who's integrity you
are not questioning?
Gee Hans Werner, I guess now that you have made a broad brush accusation I
need go back and draw pictures of what I thought was quite a straight forward
post.
I said: Wonder how these folks will be convinced and educated by Steve?
OK let me draw picture. I am taking issue with Steve's suggestion that these
very busy and very eminent people are familiar enough with the history of
ANS's performance as a subcontactor, with the positions of PSI and UUnet, with
the CIX wars etc etc, not to mention the question of how what's available
commercially overlays onto the NSF's plans, to even be aware that there may be
anything controversial in what they are being asked to approve. Therefore on
what basis are we to suppose that it will **only** be Steve's execllent powers
of persuasion that will overcome their doubts?????
As the NSB staffer said to me: the members of the board KNOW that by the time
they see recommended actions they have been approved internally within the NSF
by TWO layers of management AND by legal staff. Given THAT amount of
scrutiny, they KNOW that what is being presented to them is SOUND and WORTHY
of approval.
Under such circumstances it seems disingenous to me to imply that the science
board would be able to bring it own independent understanding to and critique
of the situation. So perhaps I am questioning the integrity of the PROCESS,
if the process is represented as being one where these people can know enough
about a horrendously complex and controversial subject so as to be able to
render their own intelligent and independently arrived at conclusion.
If I were to try to do the interviewing I suggested, again to draw the
picture, I'd want to know whether they felt they were really able to provide
independent judgment and expertise to the 4 or 5 DOZEN NSF actions they are
called upon to approve in every meeting.
________
Now as to your moderated list Hans Werner....... any suggestions for a
moderator? Lesee maybe it could revolve on a monthly schedule: Al Weis in
january, Bill Schrader in February, Steve Wolff in March, Rick Adams in
April....... Yeah. Great idea.
Although there have been lots of complaints about signal to noise ratio in the
40 months that I have participated here, this has been a pretty good forum for
discussing concerns about the direction of the Net. I think that the
thousands of folk who follow the discussions here might take some offense at
the suggestion that some moderator is needed to PROTECT them from
MISINFORMATION.
