[9682] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Some Thoughts on The National Science Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hans-Werner Braun)
Sun Jan 16 14:34:14 1994
From: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 11:32:17 PST
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9401161032.aa06670@pandora.sf.ca.us>; from "Gordon Cook" at Jan 16, 94 10:32 am
>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.
That is an interesting summary. There is also peer review before it
gets to the management chain to decide, including as NSF (to my
knowledge) does not "procure." Guess everyone does as best they can,
given the means and processes that are in place.
>________
>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.
Yeah, I guess. It is a real problem, nevertheless. Also, a moderator
would need groundrules of what to moderate. Noise? Attack severity? I
don't have the answers either.
>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.
That may be true. The problem is sure not an easy one, and quite
general, not only bound to com-priv. By the way, the moderation part of
my message was not prompted by your posting, but a quite directed
attack by someone else the other day on com-priv (not towards NSF).
Besides the n/s ratio, the volume is getting a bit high at times.
Hans-Werner
