Re: Network Associates' KRA Partner status

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

Jim Gillogly writes:

>I remember hearing this at the time.  The cited article (8 Dec 1997) has
>supporting quotes from NAI's Gene Hodges.  In addition, Dave Del Torto
>wrote to the secretary of KRA last month and got a response from
>secretariat staffer Michael LoBue on 20 Nov 1998 that addresses this
>point in passing:
>
>    Indeed, some of this current 'public debate' about NAI's
>    relationship with the KRA goes back to their public statement
>    that they 'withdrew' from the organization. The fact of the matter
>    is that they simply did not choose to become an actual member at the
>    time the organization was formally constituted. When it was reported
>    that they withdrew, there was in fact no entity from which to withdraw.

This sounds like some legalistic spin-doctoring from the KRA to try to
minimize the political impact of the departure.  Are they really claiming
that the KRA did not exist as late as December, 1997?  See their own press
release at http://www.kra.org/clips/alliance2.html, dated October 2,
1996, describing the formation of the KRA.  See also the McAfee press
release at http://www.nai.com/about/news/press/1996/121296.asp, dated
December 12, 1996, saying that McAfee was joining the KRA, and the KRA
press release http://www.kra.org/clips/prkeyrec0597.html from May, 1997,
welcoming 22 new members.

Perhaps their story is that prior to December, 1997, the KRA had enough
existence for companies to join, but not enough for them to withdraw?

>> NAI bought TIS a few months later.  TIS was a member and in fact a leading
>> member of the KRA.  By purchasing TIS, NAI inherited its membership in
>> the KRA, and so NAI was once again a member.
>
>It was more explicit than this.  Michael LoBue said further:
>
>    Concerning Network Associates membership in the KRA, in response to your
>    question I have verified that our files contain an executed Membership
>    Agreement for Network Associates (dated July 2, 1998), as well as a properly
>    completed Application for Membership of that same date. 
>
>This is not just accepting the existing membership status of TIS.  It's
>reversing NAI's non-membership status and explicitly joining.

Keep in mind that the KRA is apparently trying to put a particular spin
on events, as is clear from their strained attempt to claim that NAI never
withdrew because their was "no entity from which to withdraw."  They want
to maximize the appearance of commercial support for their organization.

The membership applications they are referring to may just be the
paperwork needed to officially transfer the membership from TIS to NAI.
This would represent NAI's decision to continue to be a member of the
KRA but would not be a matter of joining anew; rather it would maintain
the existing relationship inherited from TIS.