🚀 go-pugleaf

Tony Rutkowski wrote: On the positive side, they underscore Ira's concerns
about the critical importance of the NPRM proceeding as a means of
establishing a lawful foundation for administrative functions,

Cook: it's true we are on unchartered ground, but if the foundation that is
being laid includes, what looks to me to be, willful failure on behalf of
the DOJ to defend the actions of a federal agency such that skillful
attornies are incented to try class action suits I want no part of it. THE
US GOV'T MAKES BODE A MULTIMILLIONAIRE TO TEACH NSF A LESSON?  IS THIS THE
CIVICS OF THE NEW Internet!?

Rutkowski: and dramatically expands the liability of those who "would be
king" and purport to establish their own overarching  governance schemes
without lawful authority.

Cook:  "WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY?" Yeow!  I have seen documents that Judge
Hogan did not see and SHOULD have seen.  While I am not a lawyer and you or
anyone else are therefore free to scoff therefore at my statement, I
believe on the basis of what I have seen that, had Judge Hogan the same
benefit, he would have had no choice but to rule differently

Please elaborate on what you mean by those who would be king?  NSF knew in
the fall of 95 that IANA funding would not go on forever.  It tried to
collect some fees from users of the Internet to support the transition it
knew was forthcoming.  It was holding them in escrow and intended to give
them to whatever body there was consensus for.  Little did it realize there
would be no consensus.  THAT lack of ability to foretell the future has
indeed turned into a failing.  Nevertheless, the FACT remains that by late
February the NSF had gained the permission of the National Science Board to
STOP collection of the $15 fee as of April 1 1997 and take the money
collected and use it to endow an Internet Foundation that would have
started operation on April 1, 1997.

The FACT is that SOMEWHERE in the White House in February 1997 someone
decided on the basis of some authority - never yet announced - that the
National Science Boards decision would be over ruled, that Ira's DNS
working Group would be established and that everything would be frozen in
place.  Therefore by WHITEHOUSE administration decision the now "illegal
tax" was collected for another year and grew by **another $25 million
dollars**.  IF WE ARE TO EXCORIATE THE NSF FOR ITS GOOD INTENTIONS, THEN
HOW DO WE LET THE NAMELESS FACELESS ENTITY THAT STARTED WHAT EVENTUALLY
TURNED INTO THE RULE MAKING PROCESS OFF THE HOOK FOR A BONNER EVER BIT AS
BAD AS THE NSF'S GOOD INTENTIONS NOW LOOK? (IE the collection of the
infrastructure fund for yet annother year after it was obvious to NSF that
collection should have been stopped.)

Tony please fess up as to just what over arching governance scheme you are
talking about?  If we are going to have full disclosure I would like to
have the light of day shown on the persons who in Feb 97 took this process
over on the part of the Federal government.

Rutkowski: It will also incent skilled attorneys to go after abusers with
class action suits.

Cook:  Tony - sorry but if you knew the full facts I cannot believe that
you would make such a statement.  The abuser here you claim has to exist.
Sorry  - I simply don't see such a party -  I do see what looks like to me
successful ambulance chasing thanks to the absolutely INEXPLICABLE failure
on the part of DOJ to do its duty!!




>Gordon,
>
>Just goes to show you that you really can make money on the
>Internet. :-)
>
>There were two judgements here.  One involving the fund,
>and the other affirming the lawfulness of the registration
>activity under the cooperative agreement.
>
>On the positive side, they underscores Ira's concerns about
>the critical importance of the NPRM proceeding as a means of
>establishing a lawful foundation for administrative functions,
>and dramatically expands the liability of those who "would be
>king" and purport to establish their own overarching
>governance schemes without lawful authority.  It will also
>incent skilled attorneys to go after abusers with class action
>suits.
>
>
>
>
>--tony
***************************************************************************
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
***************************************************************************