nanog mailing list archives
Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION
From: bmanning () ISI EDU
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 05:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Ladies and Gentlemen: It will be very challenging to see a diverse and informed crowd such as the cross-section of com-priv and nanog attempt to reach an 80 to 90 percent concensus on what constitutes "Acceptable Usage" of the Internet.
why do you think com-priv (US centric coverage on privatization and commercialization) and nanog (North American Network Operators) have a lock on defining an Internet AUP? Why not let the Africans, Chinese, Indians, Europeans and South Americans do it? (We'll leave out the Japanese, Australians, Asians and North Americans becasue they don't count... :)
What do you say? Shall we table the motion or move forward?
You seem to be just a tad deluded as to the relative importance of a few white males. Perhaps we should figure out how to get a real cross-section of the Internet populace first, then worry about global policy. Or better yet, focus on the policy for silkroad.com and ensure that others that you peer directly with understand your policy. Think globally, Act locally. Get your own house in order first.
Tim
--bill
Current thread:
- SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Tim Bass (Oct 16)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION bmanning (Oct 17)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Tim Bass (Oct 17)
- Why not NANOG.... Mike O'Dell (Oct 17)
- Re: Why not NANOG.... Jim Dixon (Oct 17)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Tim Bass (Oct 17)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION bmanning (Oct 17)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Perry E. Metzger (Oct 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Sean Doran (Oct 16)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Perry E. Metzger (Oct 17)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Cat Okita (Oct 17)
- Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION Patrick Horgan (Oct 17)