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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM > To: Jared Mauch > Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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] > >