Re: if the owner of MAE-EAST can drop me a note....

[Stephen Wolff <steve () nsf gov>]

> MFS Datanet provides the service known as MAE-East to a group of
> customers who created and define it by what they are willing
> to pay for.  There is no single entity which "owns" it in any real sense.
> MFS owns the facilities which provide the service, but MAE-East as a concept
> is really more of a cooperative and there isn't any obvious "owner".

OK.  Customers, no owner.  Same arrangement MFS has with NAP-attachers.
 
> This is precisely why MFS got in seriously hot water with the MAE-East
> customers when they wanted to rename MAE-East the DC NAP - MAE-East ain't
> truly theirs to rename in a very real sense.

Rightly so.  How do you feel about language such as "MAE-East, a.k.a. DC 
NAP"?  Or maybe just not worry about names?

> That's what make responding to your otherwise quite reasonable request
> rather tricky, short of convening a MAE-East customer plenary, which MFS
> *has* undertaken once before (when the group was rather smaller).

Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry" 
and "no settlements" agreements?  Or - more to the point - have they agreed 
not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers 
they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure.  I.e., is it 
permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make 
"arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers?

If so, that's the desired (by NSF) result; I'll shut up and stay out of 
the way, and let the historians worry about what was named what.

If not, perhaps we can find a way to negotiate in absurdity avoidance
mode. 

-s

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -