RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey () worldnet att net>]

Actually K - what I am saying now - is exactly what I said
some time ago - that NANOG of all the professional
organizations, has the unique capability of being ***the***
down-on-the-metal BCP's people, otherwise maybe it makes
sense to specifically LIMIT the NANOG charter so that it
wont ever be expanded to address these issues and other orgs
will be formed to address those needs. The question is
really one of whether there is any reason to continue NANOG
if it refuses to expand with the role's requirements for
which it has chosen to stake its claim.

Personally - I believe that NANOG will evolve from just this
mailing list and its current projects to potentially be the
formal keeper here in the US and North America - at least in
an operational sense. Its clear that ICANN and the other
ICANN-ish  organizations and the PSO's and the IAB have
really no idea what is going on in a collective sense. And
that's because they are just idea houses. This is the place
where the ideas hit practice and that's what makes NANOG so
special -

Dr. Susan - you and I have differed politically on NANOG and
its roles and have come to "paper blows" over it and I
apologize for that, but what I was trying to point out to
you and the NANOG Sponsorship there at Merit, is that we are
on the cusp of some real changes in how we as a culture and
a race deal with each other electronically, and that if
NANOG is not in the midst of it then..., nay if NANOG s not
directing the charge then it will be directed by it, and I
don't think that is what anyone here wants.

This is not me predicting doom - but rather a change in what
scopes are important to this Internet thing and its
operators.

Just my two cents.

Todd Glassey

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On
Behalf Of
Krzysztof Adamski
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:54 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)



You are two days to early.

K

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

> Rafi
> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But
maybe
> not all at once.
>
> The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and
> they would create and debate the issues of network
operator
> BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of
> documents regarding the operations of networks as well as
to
> develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially
> security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically
report
> to the Main List as well on its progress or the
availability
> of new materials.
>
> The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all
> intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first
group
> but the conversations would be very different so I think
> that two lists might be necessary if they are the same
> group - but who knows.
>
> ---
>
> And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
> consortium of networking providers really do run the
> Internet here in North America... and this would be done
by
> creating agreements on what is and is not routed between
the
> members of this little tribunal so to speak. The
membership
> would be limited to a representative to each carrier that
> was a participant in this program. And all participants
> would agree to limit their routed protocols to the
approved
> "list". These players would also get to approve those work
> products developed in the Operations WG as operational
> standards too.
>
> Think this through before you say no. This is the golden
> opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it
> properly here in North America. The Government and
Homeland
> Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart
> beat.  Please chew on this last idea for a while before
you
> say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This
> is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it
> should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.
>
> Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all
of
> you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is
> until the law figures them out and also these new laws
will
> mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance
> and auditing capability.
>
> Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our
> actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and
as
> they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather
> that being two steps behind them its better to see them
> coming and stay two steps ahead.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:rafi-nanog () meron openu ac il]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA
Too
> True)
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
>
>  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
>
>
> --
>       Rafi
>
>
>
> ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:
>
> JM>
> JM>
> JM>   Hello,
> JM>
> JM>   Someone write up a list charter for a new list and
let
> me know.
> JM>
> JM>   I can host such a list.
> JM>
> JM>   - Jared
> JM>
> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey
> wrote:
> JM> >
> JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is
a
> real
> JM> > issue though and its important to the global
> operations of
> JM> > the bigger picture Internet -
> JM> >
> [snipped]