Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
Steve Gibbard wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the >> game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in >> more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to "put up" >> to "shut up". > > Speaking as somebody who has "put up" a few times, and who has been more > recently shutting up most of the time... Honestly, some of us would love to help out, but working 12 to 14 hour days in technology keep any desires to spend all personal time working technology to a minimum. That does not mean that we are either lazy or that have no good ideas or input. > I'm not generally finding the NANOG list worth reading these days, and > that makes me sad. I don't think I've noticed anything particularly > off-topic recently. I don't know that the content on the nanog list has really changed in the 10+ years that I've been around it. There are a few posts of interesting content buried in 10 posts that are not. I really don't know that anything is really broken, so I'm not sure that there is really anything to fix. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
On 29 Jan 2008, at 15:57, Steve Gibbard wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> >> Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> And seriously, can we stop with the "if you don't like it, you must >>> volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes" mantra? >> >> Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the >> game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in >> more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to "put >> up" >> to "shut up". > > Speaking as somebody who has "put up" a few times, and who has been > more > recently shutting up most of the time... > >>> For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd >>> strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is >>> too >>> strict and warrants clarification. >> >> Reasonable people may disagree with any particular MLC action, >> however, I don't think that overall policy interpretation is too >> strict right now. > > It seems to me that there are two issues, topicality and quality. > > I'm not generally finding the NANOG list worth reading these days, and > that makes me sad. I don't think I've noticed anything particularly > off-topic recently. The mailing list committee must be doing a > good job > of dealing with that sort of thing. What I am seeing is discussion > threads going on and on and on, long after there's nothing new left to > say. Mostly this seems to be a fairly small group of people who > appear to > feel compelled to voice strong opinions over and over again on > every topic > that comes up, whether it's something they know anything about or > not. I I think that is evidenced also on nanog-futures. How to measure the true satisfaction of the community I don't know but I don't see evidence that NANOG posts or diversity is decreasing. Is there a problem or is the list just evolving and not everyone likes it? Steve > don't think those people add any value to the discussion, and I don't > think the hordes of people who generally jump in to argue with them > from > different but equally uninformed perspectives do either. But, most > of the > time those people are on-topic. They're just not useful or > interesting. > > I'd be quite happy to see the list administrators going to some of the > most frequent posters and asking them to post less, whether on > topic or > not. > > -Steve > > ___ > 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> And seriously, can we stop with the "if you don't like it, you must >> volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes" mantra? > > Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the > game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in > more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to "put up" > to "shut up". Speaking as somebody who has "put up" a few times, and who has been more recently shutting up most of the time... >> For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd >> strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is too >> strict and warrants clarification. > > Reasonable people may disagree with any particular MLC action, > however, I don't think that overall policy interpretation is too > strict right now. It seems to me that there are two issues, topicality and quality. I'm not generally finding the NANOG list worth reading these days, and that makes me sad. I don't think I've noticed anything particularly off-topic recently. The mailing list committee must be doing a good job of dealing with that sort of thing. What I am seeing is discussion threads going on and on and on, long after there's nothing new left to say. Mostly this seems to be a fairly small group of people who appear to feel compelled to voice strong opinions over and over again on every topic that comes up, whether it's something they know anything about or not. I don't think those people add any value to the discussion, and I don't think the hordes of people who generally jump in to argue with them from different but equally uninformed perspectives do either. But, most of the time those people are on-topic. They're just not useful or interesting. I'd be quite happy to see the list administrators going to some of the most frequent posters and asking them to post less, whether on topic or not. -Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And seriously, can we stop with the "if you don't like it, you must > volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes" mantra? Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to "put up" to "shut up". > For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd > strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is too > strict and warrants clarification. Reasonable people may disagree with any particular MLC action, however, I don't think that overall policy interpretation is too strict right now. ---Rob ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
Philip Smith wrote: > 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. Step 1: redirect this particular thread where it belongs, if it belongs somewhere else. > 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. :-) Whoa. It's not the North American Internet's prerogative to dictate European Internet's policies, therefore I don't see how or why we should so drastically wall off non-NA policy as discussion. Therefore, Michael's objection has (in my opinion) serious merit for discussion/debate. Since there's no 'Europe bit' in IPvx, is there really no room for discussing the impact of European policy on global Internet operations? And seriously, can we stop with the "if you don't like it, you must volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes" mantra? There's an apparent disconnect with the AUP and this (particular) thread. Is it really appropriate to quash the discussion so quickly? Is it time to restrict the MLC, PC, and SC to individuals who either reside in North America or participate in $dayjob that primarily or only exists in North America? Or can we allow this discussion about policy? For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is too strict and warrants clarification. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
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
