Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
Methinks they've already taken it... - ferg -- Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps its time to give them the web so that we can have the internet back? -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
When I hear Robert Mugabe talk about internet governance I don't really get the impression that he has the interests of the people of Zimbabwe at heart. joelja On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:45:12 -0500, Scott W Brim wrote: > I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and > > email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing > phenomenon. > It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the Internet i was probably too cryptic. yes, they are using the term 'web' to mean 'the internet'. the problem is that professional writing needs to be careful, and a failure at such a basic level as using web to apply to email does not bode well for the utility of the article... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
Dave, as you're in Apricot anyway .. there's an APDIP session today evening that's discussing these ITU/WGIG issues. http://igov.apdip.net/events/apricot2005/document_view UNDP-APDIP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005/APNIC 19 in partnership with Internet Governance Task Force of Japan Date: Tuesday 22nd February 16:00-17:30 Venue: Room B1 on 2F, Kyoto International Conference Hall (KICH), Kyoto, Japan On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:06:11 +0900, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the problem is that professional writing needs to be careful, and a failure > at such a basic level as using web to apply to email does not bode well for > the utility of the article...
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:45:12 -0500, Scott W Brim wrote: > > I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and > > > > email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing > > phenomenon. > > > It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the Internet i was probably too cryptic. yes, they are using the term 'web' to mean 'the internet'. the problem is that professional writing needs to be careful, and a failure at such a basic level as using web to apply to email does not bode well for the utility of the article... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
Scott W Brim wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 08:43:15AM +0900, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:55:04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: ? My favorite quote is: ? "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial messages that ? can flood email accounts by the hundreds and burden the web with unwanted ? traffic." I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing phenomenon. It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the Internet. Perhaps its time to give them the web so that we can have the internet back?
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 08:43:15AM +0900, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:55:04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > >? My favorite quote is: > > > >? "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial > >messages that ? can flood email accounts by the hundreds and burden > >the web with unwanted ? traffic." > > I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and > email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing > phenomenon. It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the Internet.
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:55:04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > My favorite quote is: > > "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial messages that > can flood email accounts by the hundreds and burden the web with unwanted > traffic." I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing phenomenon. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
On Feb 21, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Especially in lite of the comment you posted and the fact that developing countries seem to be the major sources of SPAM these days. a) spam, not SPAM (which is a tasty luncheon meat from Hormel) b) s/sources/entry points/ The vast majority of spam is American in nature.
Re: NANOG Changes
On 21 Feb 2005, at 10:06, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: nanog-reform here: http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much like what we have now. And since it an open list (and since I had trouble finding subscription information at the above URL or at www.nanog-reform.org) the following might be useful to others: To subscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe
RE: NANOG Changes
All: Reminder, if you sent an email regarding NANOG changes to either list (NANOG or NANOG-Futures) between Thursday (Feb. 17) and Saturday (Feb. 20), the list archive was not working yet. Sorry about the disruption and loss. Please resend your email privately to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will make sure to add all mail received to the nanog-futures archive. Thanks for your support:> Betty
RE: NANOG Changes
> -Original Message- > From: Bill Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:53 PM > To: Hannigan, Martin > Cc: William Allen Simpson; nanog@merit.edu > Subject: RE: NANOG Changes > > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > [ snip ] > > > >> As I was browsing the archive, I > >> noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon > >> that quoted > >> mine have been removed from it. > > > >> From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until > > just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. > > > > So, now that archiving is on (for those of us reading the > archive instead > of subbing to the traffic), can those posts be resubmitted > for the sake of > posterity? Bill; Let me correct a mischaracterization. I have nothing to do with any technical or administrative issue on nanog-futures. I'm just a poster like anyone else. As far as the nanog-futures archive goes? You'd think it would be a relatively simple operation to add something that's missing. How about just resending it as a "historical note" and if some person feels really strongly that it must be authenticated, by all means, PGP sign it. -M<
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
My favorite quote is: "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial messages that can flood email accounts by the hundreds and burden the web with unwanted traffic." Especially in lite of the comment you posted and the fact that developing countries seem to be the major sources of SPAM these days. Of course, given all the good that the ITU has done for telecommunications and RF Spectrum control (NOT!) Finally, there's the issue of can the internet really be "governed". My inclination is not. ICANN certainly is not "governing" the internet. Sure, ICANN has some level of control over the creation of new TLDs and is responsible for handing out addresses and protocol/port numbers at the top level, but, ICANN doesn't approve or reject new protocols. They don't control how packets are routed at any real operational level. They don't set any real policies other than those for address allocation. Nor would they really be able to if they tried. Further, ICANN gets what little power it does have primarily from the consent of the network operational community and general agreement that stable operations within the ICANN framework is better than chaos. If it comes to a tug of war between ICANN and ITU, it will be interesting to see if anyone actually wins. How many operators will follow ICANN and how many will follow ITU? How many will simply start running a different Internet? How many other competing ANAs will develop in the process? Interesting times in the Chinese sense of the term. Owen pgp34qINin3Za.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
I forgot to reference an (ironic) article that Reuters posted back in July 2004 entitled "U.N. Internet Policy Off Course, Pioneer Says"... The only reference I can find of it at the moment is: http://www.undp.org.vn/mlist/ksdvn/072004/post42.htm which is culled from the United Nations Development Programme, Knowledge Systems in Development (Viet Nam) mailing list. - ferg [snip] My favorite quote(s) from this very brief article: "Right now, the most recognizable Internet governance body is a California-based non-profit company, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)." "But developing countries want an international body, such as the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to have control over governance -- from distributing Web site domains to fighting spam." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-02-21T171326Z_01_N21644703_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-UN-DC.XML - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NANOG Changes
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: [ snip ] As I was browsing the archive, I noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon that quoted mine have been removed from it. From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. So, now that archiving is on (for those of us reading the archive instead of subbing to the traffic), can those posts be resubmitted for the sake of posterity? - billn
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
the report itself is linked to from http://www.itu.int/wsis/wgig/index.html Scott >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 21 13:39:30 2005 X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu X-UNTD-OriginStamp: AcganUYbgVGZ0C6nm/9IPZjpYFhzViOy3yko4/7Kg+gh8Jcz50VKiw== X-Originating-IP: [168.38.70.109] Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:37:05 GMT To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July X-Mailer: WebMail Version 2.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ContentStamp: 5:2:2409225524 X-MAIL-INFO:4d17cb9e9ec39e8e8f93a39e1bee17d7d75fd7b3ba9ee7d73ffeee03237747d74ebf7a8f1f6f7f2b67aa0a2ea787339be38f2bbbfacf4b2ebb7ec33b07bb4f9fcf1ad3c7f7bb3ada77db9aaa13df5eeeafcbcaf31793b7dbdf1e7b6b4a1e1ecb1e0b03735f1ee73e9bfb3e2e5a5a2e9b9bbb83ef9f3ffeee03237747d74ebf7a8f1f6f7f2b67aa0a2ea787333a73633a4ac3c34a7373eab74f1e Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Loop: nanog My favorite quote(s) from this very brief article: "Right now, the most recognizable Internet governance body is a California-based non-profit company, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)." "But developing countries want an international body, such as the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to have control over governance -- from distributing Web site domains to fighting spam." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-02-21T171326Z_01_N21644703_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-UN-DC.XML - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
My favorite quote(s) from this very brief article: "Right now, the most recognizable Internet governance body is a California-based non-profit company, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)." "But developing countries want an international body, such as the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to have control over governance -- from distributing Web site domains to fighting spam." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-02-21T171326Z_01_N21644703_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-UN-DC.XML - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quantifying risk of waiting vs. upgrading for router vulnerabilities
At 1:05 AM -0700 1/31/05, Pete Kruckenberg wrote: After another long week of dealing with "upgrade now or die" vulnerabilities, I'm wondering... Is there data or analysis that would help me quantify the risks of waiting (while I plan and evaluate and test) vs. doing immediate software upgrades? With many router vulnerabilities, exploits are in the wild within 24 hours. But how often are they used, and how often do they cause actual network outages? There have been several major router vulnerabilities during the last 2 years which have provided a reasonable data sample to analyze. Can that data be used to create a more-accurate risk-analysis model? The risk of outage is very high (or certain) if I jump into upgrading routers, and the quicker I do an upgrade, the more likely I am to have a serious, extended outage. However, this is the only choice I have absent information other than "every second gives the miscreants more time to bring the network down." If I delay doing the upgrade, using that delay to research and test candidate versions, carefully deploy the upgrade, etc, I reduce the risk of outage due to bad upgrades, at the expense of increasing the risk of exploitation. I'd love to find the "sweet spot" (if only generally, vaguely or by rule-of-thumb), the theoretical maximum upgrade delay that will most reduce the risks of upgrade outages while not dramatically increasing the risks of exploitation outages. Ideas? Pointers? Pete. Pete, You touch on a broad area where I think there is data relevant to network operators, but they aren't aware of it: clinical medicine, more narrowly public health, and specifically epidemiology. What you describe is very much like the situation where there is a disease outbreak, and, perhaps only an experimental drug with which to treat it. How does one look at the risk versus reward tradeoff? There are many medical approaches to considering the value of a drug or treatment -- this falls into the discipline, as well, of "evidence based medicine." There are assorted metrics for such things as "cost per year of life extension", and, more recently, "cost per year of quality life extension." These models include the cost of the treatment and both the probability of protection/improvement and of adverse effects. Adverse effects can range from a drug having no benefit but doing no harm, but precluding the use of a drug known to have some, but probably lesser efficacy -- or perhaps much more toxicity. The "clinician" has to assess the probability that the software or medical "bug fix" will kill both the bug and the patient. It may be worthwhile to study the rather fascinating and time-sensitive problem faced every year, in coming up with the appropriate mixture of influenza substrains for that year's vaccine. The process is rather fascinating. Influenza strains initially classify by which of three H and two N factors are present in a given virus. There are substrains below, say, H3N2. In general, the first of the new year's strains start in animals in Western China. They may mutate on their way into human form. There is a practical limit on how many strains can be put into the same batch of vaccine, and there is a lead time for vaccine production. Vaccine specialists, even ignoring things like this season's production disaster, have to make an informed guess what to tell the manufacturers to prepare, which may or may not match the viral strains clinically presenting in flu season. There really are a number of applications of epidemiology to network operational security. In this community, we note the first appearances of malware and have informal alerting among NOCs and incident response teams, but I am unaware of anyone using the formal epidemiological/biostatistical methods of contact/first occurrence tracing. Applying some fairly simple methods to occurrence vs. time vs. location, for example, can reveal if there is one source of infection that infects one victim at a time, if there is contagion (different from infection) from victim to victim, etc. Indeed, some of the current work in early warning of biological warfare attack may have useful parallels to recognizing random infection versus an intelligently controlled BOTNET DDoS. Howard
ChoicePoint debacle widens....
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/infotheft/2005-02-21-choicepoint-expands-warning_x.htm - ferg
Re: NANOG Changes
Arhchive here michael: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/ not sure if its complete yet but i know merit are trying to include the first few messages nanog-reform here: http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much like what we have now. we saw this successful in vegas with the community forum and the document on the nanog-reform site was well put together. what we have now is what happens when 5000 people try to negotiate which is many varying opinions, vocal people getting more airtime than they ought to when their opinions are only their opeinions and nnot necessarily the opinions of any large group. some folks need to write a document, propose it, vote on it and majority rules.. not everyone will like all of it but its not possible to write a document that satisfies everyone 100%. i believe thats the aim of the bbylaws doc - please dont flame it, provide constructive comments, be prepared to compromise and dont get lost in minutia when the major points have yet to be fixed. Steve On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that > > > site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? > > >People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the > > thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. > > Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that > all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and > not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out, > in the realm of politics, perception equals reality. > > If something is not completely in the open then people > tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing > backroom deals to sieze power. > > The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed. > > If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated > with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on > the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page. > Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the > nanog-reform.org homepage. > > If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put > information about it on the website. > > If there really are some interim results as reflected > by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this > info on the nanog-reform.org website. > > Dot the i's. Cross the t's. > > The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only > partially represented by this mailing list and even less > represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are > many, many IP network operators in North America (and > elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation > and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order > to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic > language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd > and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform > list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list. > This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general > comment on behavior which is widespread on this list. > > It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has > grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and > organizations to better meet the needs of the industry > and the IP network operations community. > > --Michael Dillon > >
RE: NANOG Changes
Most of the note below is just a rant, similar in form to the dozen notes by a handful of posters over the weekend here, on NANOG-Reform & NANOG-Futures. C'mon folks, refocus that energy into doing something professional and positive for the NANOG community. Please cease demands for over-the-top documentation from hard-working volunteers. Fixating on a stray message or two that were sent in advance of archive activation is fruitless. There is no way what was said in the halls at the NANOG meetings - in Reston or Vegas - about this project could be documented in full either. Embrace the progress made on many fronts and work towards the by-laws. -ren At 08:59 PM 2/20/2005 -0800, Michel Py wrote: Hi Gadi, > Gadi Evron wrote: > Please read the below text in full, if you are going to read > any of it. I use a lot of cynicism to get my point across. Same here. Besides cynicism, I also use (and possibly abuse) sarcasm. > I haven't been involved with the NANOG reform initiative, > and haven't really commented on it, as I liked what I saw > and am not really that involved with NANOG politics - and > that's just how I like it. > However, I can't ignore some of the things I am seeing > lately from the outside, hence my comments, which are mine > alone and stand as opinions others don't have to accept. > Also, I may be wrong. Replies I received, especially from > Steve, satisfied me originally. No longer. FWIW, I am interested in hearing more about the "no longer" part. > I believe in Merit's wishes, good will, hard work and promises. > I really do. For the record, I do not believe in wishes, good will, promises, rumors, buzzwords and the list is too long to go on. I believe in results. Except: > hard work. I do believe in this one. It does not mean that I like it, as I prefer napping on the beach with nothing to do to working, but I do believe in this one anyway. If anyone has good tips on how to achieve the same by napping on the beach instead of hard working, please speak up! > And I am willing to give them time and working-space. Same here. > Thing is, we seem to be missing something. > Martin Hannigan, an all around good guy, seems (to me) to > have made a snag at management, hiding behind the reform. I could have written this myself. For the record, these are my own words posted on nanog-reform 3 days ago: "This will be perceived by the innocent bystander as follows: Martin wanted Susan's job and got it through backroom maneuvers in the dark." > Can't argue with my ill-formed and un-informed feelings > (or any feelings for that matter), right? Whether your feelings are ill-formed and/or un-informed is not relevant to me (also valid for my own feelings, BTW). Paul Vixie and William Allen Simpson have recently worded better text than I could about this. > You can explain to me, how this is not the case and I am making > stupid deductions, based on facts you did not yet easily provide > - that has yet to happen. I wonder why. Please give me facts that > will burn these weird ideas our of my skull.. please.. I *want* > to see the light. I'm afraid I want to see the light as much as you do, not the one carrying the light. > Now, I don't really mind the reform or Martin doing it, I just > don't see how it is "visible" beyond us just being "told" about it. My point also. > When I am *told* about something, I go to conspiracy theories, This reminds me that I have to have a good talk between me, my ego and my subconscious mind about conspiracy theories. Do you have two other guys in your brain too? > and then to investigation. I am paranoid, it's my job. If you don't mind my asking, is this a _paying_ job? If yes, I wouldn't mind a copy of the application form :-) > You don't have to like my opinions or listen to me. But me and how > many others have these mis-conceptions? Please share with us few > idio... ignorant fools. I would have written: "idio^H^H^H^H ignorant fools." > Enlighten us. As mentioned earlier, I am not the one carrying the light. I expect Sue Joiner to shed light soon though. > "Provisional" [government] is way too "un-declared" in my > opinion. Please "define" what "provisional" means. Also, > I am overly uncomfortable about the lack of visibility from > the offset. Visibility is the main "thing" Merit promised. Gadi, you are preaching the choir. [This sounds weird to me as much as I expect it does to you; not only I do not know of everyone that actually has preached a choir, it does not appear to me that you could be one of these. Nevertheless it is a very common English/American sentence; non-native English speakers, google is your friend] > Now, I don't personally know you, but I doubt you would lie > about this. However, I also know Martin to be a good an > honourable guy, so I'd suggest you post the email messages > that disappeared, here, and let us decide if there is > censorship The messages that have disappeared have been forwarded to Sue. I am happy to forward them to you if re
Fortigate 300A
Greetings! We are considering Fortigate 300A to be deployed in our network. I would like to hear your experience with this product, if you are using/have used/tested Fortigate. (and also about their support service). Pl. write off list and if there's an interest, I'll summarize to the list. I appreciate you time -- Priyantha P Kumara
Re: NANOG Changes
> > Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that > > site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? >People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the > thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out, in the realm of politics, perception equals reality. If something is not completely in the open then people tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing backroom deals to sieze power. The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed. If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page. Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the nanog-reform.org homepage. If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put information about it on the website. If there really are some interim results as reflected by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this info on the nanog-reform.org website. Dot the i's. Cross the t's. The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only partially represented by this mailing list and even less represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are many, many IP network operators in North America (and elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list. This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general comment on behavior which is widespread on this list. It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and organizations to better meet the needs of the industry and the IP network operations community. --Michael Dillon
Re: NANOG Changes
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:05:03AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have > a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but > old news. The nanog-reform list was announced both on nanog@ and during the Sunday night meeting in Vegas. It is a public list. > > http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws > > Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that > site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? I wouldn't really classify a set of draft bylaws that are being constantly discussed on a mailing list that has been publicly announced, that live on a web site that anyone can read or post changes to, as "hidden away." Particularly when any complete set of bylaws would be voted on anyway. People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. --msa
RE: NANOG Changes
> [for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a > hidden reference to my yesterday's post] Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but old news. > http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? --Michael Dillon
Re: NANOG Changes
> Merit has setup the nanog-futures list and made it public and open from the > outset.. that is the forum to take this discussion to but focus on HAS set up? I thought they were going to set it up. Hmmm Well, what do you know, here it is at the bottom of this page... http://www.nanog.org/email.html No archive yet that I can see... --Michael Dillon
