>I think some important questions need to asked:
I agree that these are important questions, but the I think we need to
remember that answers are more important that questions. The answers may
say that NCSA is performing a significant service. The tone of the
questions seems to find the NCSA guilty before all the facts are known. An
NCSA employee can probably answer these questions better than I can but I
>1. Who appointed the NCSA as the proper body to approve firewalls?
They saw a service that was needed and performed it. Did they have a
profit motive? The answer is probably yes, but why is that bad?
>2. Do people realize that in order to be approved, a vendor must be a
>member of the NCSA?
If this is correct, is this improper? UL has made a significant and
respectable business in the same mode.
>3. Do people realize that the first vendors approved were all members of
>the NCSA and as such got a timing advantage over other non-members?
Is this true?
>4. Is it fair that all vendors, irrespective of size, must first pay a
>$22,000 membership fee?
Why not testing costs money.
>5. Will the NCSA put a footnote on their "approved" list that only those
>vendors willing to pay $22,000 have received the NCSA's approval?
That is up to NCSA.
>6. Doesn't the "bundled" concept of membership and qualification for
>approval render whole process meaningless?
Not in my opinion.
>7. Have any members of NCSA not been approved?
That is for NCSA to answer.
>8. What is NCSA doing with the funds received by its members? Is NCSA a
Since when is making a profit bad.
* Jon Tegethoff jet @
* Cypher-Sage 1605 South Garden St. *
* Palatine, Il 60067 847-397-2646 *