Re: [Nanog-futures] GoogleGroups and Nanog (was Re: IPv6 Availability on XO)
Sorry about that - I approved it to the list without looking at it in depth (hit Approve to quickly). Mea Culpa Mike On behalf of the NANOG CC -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Lynda [mailto:shr...@deaddrop.org] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:06 AM To: Nanog Futures Subject: [Nanog-futures] GoogleGroups and Nanog (was Re: IPv6 Availability on XO) On 5/23/2011 8:16 PM, Ryan Malayter wrote: (stuff about XO and IPv6) This was sent to nan...@googlegroups.com instead of to Nanog, and my mail client conveniently marked it as spam. In the old days, when a mailing list was gatewayed to Usenet, I think it may have been simpler for people to recognize that they were replying to a Usenet group, and a mailing list, and set the headers accordingly. I'm guessing that (since I just moved to a new machine, and spam filtering needs to be trained all over again) NANOG has been accepting email from googlegroups for quite a while, and I just never noticed. I'm busy being a Luddite today (Google managed to step on my last nerves last night), but the headers still seemed extra strange to me. Is it just me? ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to NewNOG
Also not for the board, but it's also likely to be a DBA because of the 501(c)3 election process, which was initiated under the NewNOG name. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 6:36 AM To: Brian Johnson Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to NewNOG I can't speak for the board, but as I understand it, it will probably be DBA (doing business as). The expense of going back and redoing all the work is just too much. Hopefully, we'll only see NewNOG used on legal documents from now on Dan On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: Will there be a move to change the name of NewNOG to NANOG now that the IP has been transferred, or will this be more like a DBA situation? - Brian J. -Original Message- From: Steven Feldman [mailto:feld...@newnog.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:12 AM To: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to NewNOG Yesterday, NewNOG and Merit Network signed an agreement to transfer the NANOG trademark and related resources to NewNOG, effective Monday, Feb. 7. This includes the nanog.org domain, the NANOG logo, and the contents and archives of the NANOG mailing lists and web site. NewNOG and Merit are working on a transition plan to migrate the mailing list and web infrastructure by the end of March with minimal downtime. For more information, see our joint press release: http://www.merit.edu/news/newsarchive/article.php?article=20110201_ nan og Steve, for the NewNOG board ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG membership policy adopted
Hello Brian: If you go to the Donors page (http://www.newnog.org/donors.php) there is a PayPal link there. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) On 1/17/11 6:37 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: Who do I write out the check to, or can I use PayPal to pay? - Brian J. -Original Message- From: Steve Feldman [mailto:feld...@newnog.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:01 AM To: nanog-futures Subject: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG membership policy adopted Based on the proposal sent last month and discussion on this list, the NewNOG Board has adopted a membership policy. As in the proposal, there are two components: a Bylaws amendment to establish a framework, and a board resolution to set the policy. The full text of both parts are appended below. The amendment text is unchanged from the proposal. It takes effect immediately, but will need to be ratified by the membership during the fall election. After discussion on the list, we changed one element of the proposed framework, to allow the member registration discount to be applied to the general early registration rate and only exclude its use from special rates (such as for students.) This change appeared to have broad consensus. We chose to go with this simple set of rules, and can adjust them as needed as we gain experience. As always, discussion on this list is encouraged. Over the next few days, we will establish procedures to become a member, and will announce them here. Thanks, Steve (for the Board) === === Bylaws amendment, adopted by unanimous vote of the Board on January 4, 2011, effective immediately but subject to ratification by the membership: - Replace the current section 5 in its entirety with: 5. Membership 5.1 Membership Qualifications Membership in NewNOG is open to any individual with an interest in Internet operations, engineering, or research and who wishes to further education and knowledge sharing within the Internet operations community. Any individual may become a member of NewNOG by completing an application and payment of dues. 5.2 Membership Classes There shall be only one class of membership, with all the rights and privileges specified in these Bylaws. 5.3 Membership Dues The Board of Directors shall specify the cost of annual membership dues. The Board may establish discounts for members meeting certain criteria, or for members wishing to pay for more than one year in advance. 5.4 Rights and Benefits of Members Members in good standing shall be entitled to these privileges: * Vote in all NewNOG elections. * Run as a candidate for the Board of Directors * Serve on an administrative committee, as defined in section 9 * Other privileges as specified by the Board of Directors 5.5 Policies and Procedures The Board of Directors shall establish and publish policies and procedures for implementation of the membership program. === === Membership Policies and Procedures, adopted by Board resolution Jan. 4, 2011: 1. Annual Dues 1.1 Standard rate The standard annual dues is $100. 1.2 Student discount Students enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at an accredited institution will receive a 50% discount for annual dues. Proof of enrollment is required. This may not be combined with any other discount. 1.3 Multi-year discount Individuals who prepay three or more years of membership in advance will receive a 10% discount. This may not be combined with any other discount. 2. Membership Terms 2.1 Start of membership The term of membership shall begin immediately upon receipt of the member's application and payment for dues. 2.2 Expiration of membership 2.2.1 New memberships For new members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the last day of the month during which the membership started, unless membership is renewed. 2.2.2 Continuing memberships For continuing members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the previous expiration date, unless membership is renewed. 2.3 Renewal A member may renew by submitting payment of the current dues amount before the expiration of the current membership term. Members who have prepaid for more than one year in advance shall be automatically renewed for the additional years prepaid. 3. Additional Benefits 3.1 Meeting discount Members in good standing will receive a $25 discount on registration fees for any conference operated by NewNOG. This discount may not be applied any to any special registration rates, such as for speakers, students, sponsors, or members of the press. === ===
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM To: Sean Figgins Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. +1 I don't think we have the resources as a volunteer/community-led organization to vet every new member, a la the IEEE. The community is completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable commitment? Specifically what is your objection to offering life membership? i thought i was pretty clear, if terse. we do not have consensus over membership categories. life membership is unwindable should we decide against it. personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when folk don't need to renew? [0] does newnog actually need the infusion up front? are there other ways to deal with the financial problem that the attempt to create of this class of membership implies? randy Short term cash supply is important; we have a decent lag between now and NANOG 52 where there will be a significant outflow of cash for salaries, hotel contracts, etc. without any meeting revenue. Having lifetime members commit early will help the balance sheet through this period. In the long run I don't believe it will have a detrimental effect because meeting and development revenue will be coming in. Regards, Mike finance-wg member hat ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] NANOG 50 Dali Exhibit
Hello All: If you are attending NANOG 50 in Atlanta and have free time there is an exhibit of Salvador Dali's late period works at the High Museum that is incredible. And if you are here now there will be a discussion with his former students and models as well as the exhibit curator at 2 EDT. Hope to see you there! Mike Sent from my iPhone ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
snip In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition where 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken time) 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community (was not really developed fully), and yet 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. This due to... a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. I suspected the same when the initial announcement came out, that some interpersonal conflict triggered a rush to action rather than a well orchestrated transition. It seems that 2) above is being addressed to a large extent. But 1) above is the real How we got here question. I have heard allusions to disagreements with regard to meeting schedules and locations, but I have no idea what those disagreements were. Did Merit want more meetings and the SC fewer, or the other way around? What happened at that closed meeting with no minutes with Merit uninvited? Who at the SC felt that who at Merit had polluted their Cheerios, and why? Again, why is this so important? Even as Bill said, the concept of NANOG going on its own has been around since the beginning of the organization, and has been discussed formally for at least 5 years. You are concerned with the ongoing relationship between NANOG and Merit and I would suggest that the SC is acutely aware of this relationship and wants it to be amicable as well. Why get into a he-said, she-said between the two organizations? Nothing good can come of that approach and I think that both the SC and Merit have done an excellent job of keeping this on a business level. Polluting the Cheerios discussion can become personal very quickly and this is not a personal decision. Actions are usually taken to solve specific problems. According to previous list postings, the SC took this action at a closed meeting, without minutes, without Merit present, and came up with a unanimous decision that immediate action was needed, which Merit thought was a bad idea. Much of this was addressed in the community meeting. There have been scheduling conflicts in the past where NANOG has been scheduled on top of other network-oriented meetings, causing many community members to have to decide what meeting to attend. Also, the scheduling of meetings is something that happens far in advance. In order to make sure we got NANOG 52 contracted, we had to get the organization formalized in short order to sign those contracts. The community has not been informed as to the specific problem that needed this immediate solution. Those who chose to take this action at a meeting without minutes, with no community involvement, have appointed themselves as the BoD of the new organization. This is worrisome to me. Again, the BoD is following the SC-elections exactly. As an example, Joe Provo will term out at the end of this year, and he will also term out from the BoD of NewNOG. The SC appointed themselves because we had to have a wireframe organization in place to begin the 501(c)(3) application as well as to sign contracts for upcoming meetings. There is no cabal. There are working groups being established with community volunteers that will determine what NewNOG will look like. A call for volunteers was issued at NANOG 49 and many have responded. If you have strong opinions about governance I suggest you become involved. If I had seen a large group of opposition to the concept at NANOG 49 I would certainly have rethought my position, but since there wasn't such a group. We were lucky that we can have an amicable parting of the ways, so it appears the timing was right. I don't think it's all that amicable, based on the initial posting to this list and Merit's response. We in the cheap seats may never know. It was really too late by NANOG 49 to unring the bell. By that time whether wasn't really a viable option. No large opposition because people didn't know the How we got here, and no real way to stop it. By that time it was a done deal. There are a few, vocal opponents, but I don't see they are opposed to NewNOG. Rather, they are opposed to the procedural decision of the SC to act on behalf of the community in creating NewNOG. I suggest they also volunteer to help shape the new organization. I can't disagree more strongly with your statement that we've lost an opportunity. All the SC did was to create a wireframe organization that directly mirrors the present structure, sans Merit, of course. The community now has the opportunity to shape that organization through volunteering and direct involvement in the new organization. Doing the nuts and bolts work of creating a new organization is not done through committee, unless you want to
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
snip aol but where the heck are pro forma financial projections for the new nanog? we were to get them with lead time to actualy study and ask questions before now. randy The hope is to get the pro forma out before the end of the week. We just received additional data from Merit that had to be incorporated into the document, adding to the costs side of the equation in a fairly significant way. The wireframe of the pro forma is not particularly complex and I have no doubt everyone will be able to digest it in short order. Regards, Mike On behalf of the transition team ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:57 AM To: Sean Figgins Cc: Nanog Futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update On 2010-06-09, at 07:08, Sean Figgins wrote: I would think that there may also me less apprehension if as part of incorporating, THIS SC was disbanded, and a new election was held for the new board of directors. We certainly should reward all the hard work that it takes make this happen, but anything that THIS SC does, should not mean automatic entitlement to some type of corporate royal status. If the replacement schedule for board members of NANOG, Inc. matched the existing replacement schedule for the SC, I don't see why any extraordinary measures would be called for. We're assuming that the NANOG, Inc. board has the same members as the SC, of course, which I don't remember hearing in any public context. The present BoD mirrors exactly the present SC, and the existing NANOG by-laws were used for the new organization. The plan, as it stands now, is to have a direct relationship between the two groups. So, when a new SC member is voted in, they will be on the BoD for NewNOG. Regards, Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] The NewNOG Website
Hello Everyone: The NewNOG website is up at http://www.newnog.org. It is definitely in its nascent stage but more data is being added every day. Please take a look at the site and look at the documentation that has been posted already. This includes the Board of Directors information, the Certificate of Incorporation, the initial bylaws and donor information. The meeting minutes for previous Board meetings will be added in the near future, as will the initial Pro Forma. If there is any information you would like to see added, please don't hesitate to let me know, or you can send email directly to the board at bo...@newnog.org. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
-Original Message- From: Pete Templin [mailto:peteli...@templin.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:31 PM To: joel jaeggli Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update joel jaeggli wrote: Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. That's my point. Merit has numerous people working on NANOG, but as far as I know they don't have staff 100% dedicated to NANOG (1). As a result, if NANOG separates from Merit, they'll have to reorganize their staff across the remaining Merit activities, likely leading to a few layoffs. Therefore, in the interest of not laying people off, Merit won't want to let NANOG go independent. Hence, the skin in the game, and a strong reason they won't speak objectively about NANOG's separation. pt [1] Betty Burke has said on multiple occasions that Merit doesn't want NANOG to occur in late June, as it conflicts with Merit's year-end. If the Merit staff assigned to NANOG were 100% dedicated to NANOG, this conflict wouldn't exist. I've been working with the SC as part of the transition team, but I am not a member of the BoD, so this is not an official proclamation in any capacity. I don't think it's wise to pre-suppose what will happen on the Merit side. They will be represented at the Community Meeting at NANOG 49 and any questions about their intentions, motivations and perceptions about the change are best held until that meeting. There is a lot of work going on in the background in preparation for the transition itself and the upcoming NANOG. Real work is being accomplished on key components of the transition, including but not limited to a budget, 501(c)(3) status, the structure of the new organization and its membership, as well as cogent answers to all of the questions that have been posted to -futures in the last weeks. All of the concerns raised in -futures are being discussed and will be addressed to the best of everyone's ability at the Community Meeting. Personally, I think this is preferable to multiple back and forth discussions on the -futures list, given that there is a lot of overlap of questions and concerns that can all be addressed in one shot when we all meet face to face. My .02, worth every penny. Regards, Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:41 AM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: Pete Templin; joel jaeggli; nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update On 2010-06-03, at 13:00, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: Personally, I think this is preferable to multiple back and forth discussions on the -futures list, given that there is a lot of overlap of questions and concerns that can all be addressed in one shot when we all meet face to face. For those who will not be able to attend and hear the update in person (e.g. we have a root zone to sign), it'd be nice to know that there will be - a way to watch the proceedings without being there, and - some notes of the salient points available promptly after the meeting is over, for those whose schedules don't allow them to watch it in real-time I appreciate we can't always get what we want :-) Joe I can't speak for the interactive video but, I will volunteer to take notes of the proceedings and get them posted to the -futures list as quickly as possible. Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Countermeasures for spam from social networks
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Joe Provo nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:51:45AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote: [snip] aol Is this really enough of a problem to devote the MLC and Merit's energy toward solving it? I do agree that if this really is worth the effort, filtering on the subject will cause much less collateral damage than filtering on the sender's domain. /aol Eh. I think aol has lost its relevance. You were there went it meant something. It's (and other phraseology) cultural significance is less and less everyday and is indicative of the nature of change that takes place on the Internet, oh, every two years now I suppose. The more we can automate to match community policy the easier it is to maintain and the more fair it is to the users and the admins. No? Best, Martin ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
-Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:36 AM To: Joel Jaeggli Cc: nanog-futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout? It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. -M http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/chess_clocks/ChessTimer+Plus+Digital+Chess+Clock?ac=froogl Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
-Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:51 AM To: Alex Pilosov Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage On Nov 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo. In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with this autoresponder policy. Please don't confuzzle things. Was it an email *to* the list or was it private email to J.Oquendo? Is his mail bouncing or not? You seem to like to apply standards to things based on how you want to react. So far, I've been reading Dillon, Bush, Oquendo, whine about being asked to be on topic. We've had agreement on Bush's bad behavoir here before, Dillons as well, not Oquendo, but he over-reacted based on a message that he did not see which he didn't know about -- since he didn't see it. To date, nobody has been warned. :-) It's amazing that challenging someones validity causes such a ruckus. Mail from the list to the list subscriber is not bouncing. Thus, no violation of the AUP. It doesn't matter what it was in response *to*. Private email between list members is not covered by AUP. In case this still isn't clear, if I send a private email response to someone in response to their list post that contains off-topic information, that's not the AUP violation. To insist that any email between list members need to comply to AUP is silly. Um. That's what happens when someone elses mailer responds to yours and mail doesn't route through Merit's mailer. It's conversation between your assets and mine. If Merit were somehow involved, you might be right. To the list, as a result of a list post, etc. They work exactly the same as far as I can tell. Mail from the list to the list subscriber is not bouncing. Thus, no violation of the AUP. I do not wish to see action taken against J Oquendo related to mail bouncing between you and him. Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
