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

[todd glassey]

That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
issue though and its important to the global operations of
the bigger picture Internet -

besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's
to hit your customers for more money since you now have
serious legal issues constraining how you architect your
business.

Todd


-->-Original Message-
-->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
-->Jack Bates
-->Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:59 AM
-->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State
-->Super-DMCA Too True)
-->
-->
-->
-->todd glassey wrote:
-->> Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
-->> splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
-->> Issues with operating network services, and
-->since there are
-->> jail terms being talked about I suggest that
-->these are now
-->> sub-organizations who's time as come.
-->>
-->
-->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal
-->aspects are relevant to
-->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is
-->excess in their mailbox
-->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.
-->
-->-Jack
-->
-->

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

[Jared Mauch]

Hello,

Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.

I can host such a list.

- Jared

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote:
> 
> That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
> issue though and its important to the global operations of
> the bigger picture Internet -
> 
> besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's
> to hit your customers for more money since you now have
> serious legal issues constraining how you architect your
> business.

> -->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal
> -->aspects are relevant to
> -->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is
> -->excess in their mailbox
> -->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.
> -->
> -->-Jack

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

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

[Rafi Sadowsky]

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]

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

[Jack Bates]

Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
 Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?

The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, 
there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, 
and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of 
legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.

-Jack

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

[McBurnett, Jim]

I agree...Partially
Legal issues are important, but those below a 
management level, mostly don't care..
I would not necessarily want another list to watch..
But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less about...

anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know..

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: Rafi Sadowsky
> Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
> 
> 
> 
> Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> > 
> >  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> > 
> 
> The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, 
> there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, 
> and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to 
> keep track of 
> legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.
> 
> -Jack
> 
> 
> 

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

[todd glassey]

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]

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

[Krzysztof Adamski]

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]
> 
> 

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

[todd glassey]

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Krzysztof Adamski
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:[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

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

[Kris Foster]

> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
> not all at once.

why don't we just get it over with and break apart/dilute into the usual
suspect: social, technological, legal, economic, political.

[sarcasm]

Kris

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

[Nathan J. Mehl]

In the immortal words of Jack Bates ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> 
> The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, 
> there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, 
> and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of 
> legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.

If the word "offtopic" is bugging people, I'll happily alias or change
the name to nanog-nonoperational, or whatever floats your boat.

-n

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  "Very funny, Space Moose."

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

[todd glassey]

I don't look at this as diluting but in rather achieving
Critical Mass -

Todd


-Original Message-
From: Kris Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:05 AM
To: 'todd glassey'; Rafi Sadowsky; Jared Mauch
Cc: Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)


> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But
maybe
> not all at once.

why don't we just get it over with and break apart/dilute
into the usual
suspect: social, technological, legal, economic, political.

[sarcasm]

Kris

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

[todd glassey]

JA - in answer to your commentary not only are you wrong but
you are in fact mistaken about the laws underlying what is
and is not restraint of trade and what would constitute
Antitrust... And as to the Super DCMA laws... in your
response to that no one would do these things - My friend
then the US Department of Justice will implement these laws
around you and you will wind up looking this on the wrong
end of an arrest warrant potentially. I am not worried about
this happening - its already in place. The legislation is
already in place in six US states. All it takes is the first
arrest warrants to be issued.

Look, you seem to think that this evolution is something
that you as a System's Or Network Admin get to, or possibly
can control, and that arrogance is what is justifying
putting these ideas in place. Now - you may not like these
ideas personally, but they are not mine alone, in fact I am
just one of many messengers all saying pretty much the same
thing - and whether you personally like it or not it is very
likely that these things are going to come to happen. This
is evidenced by the legislation in question here.

In response to your statement #2 - I believe this also to be
rather inaccurate. In fact the operational protocols
alliance is no different that any of the participants in
MFN's peering agreements or in the micro groups like
OpenPeering.ORG that are around. In fact its no different
than MERIT's or IANA's operating models, really - so this
commentary is not only wrong its abusive since it seeks to
cast a tone of "illegality" around the commentary to
discredit it.

In answer to the only real question you asked  (your comment
#2), i.e. what would happen if your employer wanted to route
a protocol that others did not want to route? Simple - that
protocol would stay within MFN.

By the way were you formally speaking for MFN as their
representative when you coined the abusive term "fantasy
group"...

Todd Glassey


-Original Message-
From: J.A. Terranson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:01 PM
To: todd glassey
Cc: Rafi Sadowsky; Jared Mauch; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)



On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

> 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.

No.

(1) There is no carrier on this planet that is going to join
your fantasy
group when the group is in a position to make calls on their
business model.

(2) The US has federal [anti-trust] laws under which this
may well be illegal
anyway.

(3) What do you do when carrier-x decides they have a need
for a protocol the
group does not wish to carry?

Forget this idea: it is beyond stillborn.

--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Robert Cannon]

If you want to splinter off to lists that already
exist and actually have a number of NANOG
participants, can I recommend

Cybertelecom-l : federal initiatives that impact the
Internet with an emphasis on the FCC 
www.cybertelecom.org

Cyberia-l : general rabble about Internet law with
lots of intellectual property bickering



=
| Washington Internet Project |
| www.cybertelecom.org|
|  cannon(a)cybertelecom.org  |

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why notnanog-legal ?)

[Mark Rogaski]

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

An entity claiming to be McBurnett, Jim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:=20
: I am not for or against either..
: just putting thoughts out there..
: NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles,
:=20

I would suggest calling it "nanog-policy".  I think the policy subheading
is a little more inclusive than "legal" and fits nicely with the
implementation/policy division that many consider to be fundamental in
system engineering.

Just my $0.02,
Mark

--=20
[] Mark 'Doc' Rogaski | Guess what? I got a fever! And the only
[] [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | prescription ... is more cowbell!
[] 1994 Suzuki GS500ER| -- Christopher Walken (as Bruce Dickinson)
[] 1975 Yamaha RD250B |

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+h3Vb79qnkXHz9aMRAhw7AJ9oXxkNKGM40C3a+bk581MWH6ariQCfaXdQ
CSKawXTsWLHwTLIp3ksJnj8=
=Vhyb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why not nanog-legal ?)

[McBurnett, Jim]

I am not for or against either..
just putting thoughts out there..
NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles,
and a more consuming one for those of us already on numerous lists..
all in all, NANOG as a whole single list usually inspires more 
information sharing when taken whole, IMHO

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: William Devine, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:15 PM
> To: McBurnett, Jim; 'Jack Bates'; 'Rafi Sadowsky'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why
> not nanog-legal ?)
> 
> 
> Why not a nanog-legal   list ?
> 
> wiliam
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> McBurnett, Jim
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 01:47 PM
> To: Jack Bates; Rafi Sadowsky
> Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...Partially
> Legal issues are important, but those below a
> management level, mostly don't care..
> I would not necessarily want another list to watch..
> But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less
> about...
> 
> anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know..
> 
> Jim
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM
> > To: Rafi Sadowsky
> > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
> >
> >
> >
> > Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> > >
> > >  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> > >
> >
> > The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However,
> > there are some that want to know what's going on in the 
> legal system,
> > and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to
> > keep track of
> > legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.
> >
> > -Jack
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>