<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension
- To: Dan Steinberg <synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, csilverman@xxxxxxx, Kathy Smith <KSMITH@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:07:16 -0700
- Cc: admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxx
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <082001c3823f$3ffe3240$988c2e44@CJ52269B> <3F710160.4010809@videotron.ca>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dan and all former DNSO GA members,
No Dan, the clauses to which Andy was referring to do exist
and are used. As one that has done a number of these
sorts of USG contracts over the years I can certainly
attest to some of them.
BTW, as I recall Worldcom/com - MCI had two of their
contracts with the FCC canceled/suspended using these very clauses.
I believe either Wired or slashdot reported on that aspect
some time ago in a couple of their articles one of which
I posted to this forum, See archives for further info.
But Dan, I do not believe that there is a URL Reference
to these clauses on the NTIA web site. So suggesting
that they do not exist simply because you are unable
to find them or Andy not providing a URL reference
for them is a rather unreasonable suggestion at best...
And BTW Dan, one of those clauses that I think
Andy was referencing is Clause 52.217-9
Yet another DOC/NTIA contact to gain specific info
would be Carol A.Silverman 301-258-4506
csilverman@xxxxxxx
Dan Steinberg wrote:
> No. I'm trying to say that if with the help of google and text searches
> people cant find the right clauses or texts when it comes to supporting
> their arguments I tend to doubt that said clauses exist in a precise
> form that would tend to support said arguments.
> I have been around this block often enough. Vague recollection of
> clauses and pointing to things that dont exactly prove a point don't
> impress me anymore. And I doubt they impress the people who are
> actually in a position to do something either.
> So if you are going to claim that NTIA should step in and use a
> particular clause or clauses I suggest you take the time to reference them.
>
> admin wrote:
>
> >>Same thing for Russ. If these clauses are so obviously applicable why
> >>do we have to go looking for them?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because most people do not have clauses to cooperative agreements memorized.
> >This is nothing new or something that has never been used before. These
> >clauses to which I refer cover all cooperative agreements and have been
> >around for many years. The issue is whether NTIA wants to step in and use
> >them.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that because people don't have the clause memorized
> >that it cannot be used?
> >
> >Russ Smith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|