Hi Michael, I've no real desire to enter into the who said what and what is on topic or off topic etc, etc, as the whole discussion is getting quite boring now.
However, I do think that you will find that there are a lot of people who are very interested in NANOG, just not interested in this particular thread any more. NANOG-futures is for discussing ways we can improve NANOG the community, NANOG the mailing list, NANOG whatever-else we want to make it. It's not really a place for whining about who did what or didn't etc - people tend to kill thread once that starts. So, for example, if you or anyone else feels they make the commitment to contribute time and energy to make the Mailing List Committee work even better than it is currently working, please feel free to volunteer the next time a call for volunteers comes around. :-) Best wishes, philip SC Chair -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following on 29/1/08 18:35: > Some typical Hannigan posturing below. Joe Greco posts a long opinion > piece about privacy policy, IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MY MESSAGE, and > Hannigan launches into a diatribe against me. > > For the record, I *HAVE* referred to the mailinglist AUP which is *NOT* > at the URL referred to by Hannigan. The 1st line of the AUP says: > > Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical > issues as described in the charter of NANOG > > To repeat my objection, the first line of the charter says: > > The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North American > region for education and the sharing of knowledge for the > Internet operations community. > > Therefore, Hannigan's message to the list is OUT OF ORDER since > it is telling list members that European-oriented discussion is > off topic. For the record, I received some private messages thanking > me for posting my objection. > > Sadly, it seems that nobody much cares about NANOG any more. Nothing > is discussed on the futures list. There is no community any more except > for the people who use NANOG as an element of their social calendar. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 28 January 2008 23:00 >> To: Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R >> Cc: nanog-admin >> Subject: Re: Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal >> >> Michael: >> >> Please refer to the (mostly) community accepted NANOG AUP as >> the document that mandates how we manage the list and what is >> and isn't on >> topic: >> >> http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist.html >> >> I would urge you to post on topic on the nanog list where >> applicable or risk being formally warned to do so or even >> banned from posting to the NANOG list as prescribed. >> >> You should feel free to discuss charter/AUP changes or issues >> in nanog-futures. >> >> Martin Hannigan >> NANOG MLC Member >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 28, 2008 5:28 AM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Folks, we'd like to ask that this thread die a quick >> and painful >>>>> death. It's gone off topic and it seems to have run >> whatever short >>>>> course that it tried. >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>>> While what Europe does >>>>> is interesting to us as network operators, this is >> European policy >>>>> and off topic for NANOG. >>>> Whoa there! You need to re-read the first line of the >> NANOG mission >>>> statement >>>> >>>> The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North American >>>> region for education and the sharing of knowledge for the >>>> Internet operations community. >>>> >>>> In other words, the NA part of NANOG refers to the >> location of the >>>> forums, *NOT* the scope of the discussions. The Internet >> operations >>>> community is global in scope and it is natural for our >> discussions >>>> to also be global in scope. >>>> >>>> Since many North American network operators have >> infrastructure in >>>> Europe (PoPs, colocated servers) they have to be aware of >> uniquely >>>> European Internet issues. >>>> >>>> And when it comes to solving a domestic problem, nothing >> puts things >>>> in perspective more than comparing how others approach >> the problem. >>> I had already commented in some other private messages something to >>> the effect that whether or not this was "operational" >> depended largely >>> upon the ethics of and legal requirements imposed upon >> network operators. >>> In the same manner that most butchers care little for the manner in >>> which their products are handled while alive, as long as the meat's >>> good when it gets here, many network operators care little for the >>> implications of these sorts of things on the privacy of >> their users, >>> so long as the users keep paying the bills. This is related to the >>> attitude which got the telcos into the warrantless >> wiretapping problem ... >>> However, for those of us who actually care (either because we feel >>> morally/ethically bound, or because we are legally obligated due to >>> local politics), it doesn't even have to involve operations in the >>> European theater. >>> >>> Privacy policy may not at first appear to be directly >> related to the >>> art of entering an enable password, but for some network >> operators, it >>> will involve questions such as "do we provide a way for a user to >>> become more anonymous," which could include things ranging from >>> esoteric stuff such as running a Tor proxy and SOCKS >> gateway (we do), >>> to more mundane things, such as DHCP lease strategies, PTR >>> assignments, etc. These are all issues relating to the design and >>> operation of your network - and I've only touched on a few issues. >>> >>> Respecting the privacy of your customers *ought* to be a BCP, and >>> *ought* to be relevant. Whether or not this particular discussion >>> falls under a reasonable level of relevance remains to be >> seen, and is >>> not the point of my message to you. Some of it clearly >> seemed a bit >>> off-track. The educational value, however, may be >> worthwhile even so. >>> In particular, there appears to be a lot of confusion about >> whether or >>> not an IP is personally identifying information. There is a >>> contingent that views an IP as not being PII, which might >> include the >>> search engine companies, and anyone who realizes that a NAT gateway >>> can put many users behind a single IP. Yet the IP /can/ be PII, it >>> just isn't necessarily (or reliably) so. The other >> contingent, that >>> views an IP as being PII, needs to learn the inverse lesson. This >>> group needs to be taught that an IP address may not >> reliably map back >>> to a single user (are you listening, RIAA?), for example. >>> >>> Whether or not the NANOG router jocks want to hear some of >> this stuff >>> is, of course, questionable at best, and network operations >> folk have >>> a long and proud history of covering their ears and >> screaming LALALA >>> as loudly as they can, to avoid hearing things they don't >> want to deal >>> with. That doesn't make it any less relevant, or any less of a >>> learning opportunity for those who will listen. :-) >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> ... JG >>> -- >>> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - >>> http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' >> rule. Give >>> me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct >>> Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 >> million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. > > _______________________________________________ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
