Re: [Nanog-futures] Possible word error in section 18.1 Liability
On Sep 20, 2012, at 00:19 , Jack Hamm jackha...@me.com wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but in section 18.1: (a) beach of the director’s or officer’s duty of loyalty to NANOG; I believe that is meant to say (a) breach of the If it were a beach, I may run again =) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring toNewNOG
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:35 AM, laperriere.syl...@gmail.com wrote: We will keep using NewNOG as a legal entity to do the contracting, so that name will not be really prominent. Changing legal names is expensive and our mission is to be frugal. Nanog remains the brand known to the community for communications, for members, for lists and for conferences. I don't see this as a big deal. Remember, NANOG was never the name of a corporation, it was only a mailing list, domain, conference, etc. Merit ran NANOG without changing their name. NewNOG, Inc. will do the same, and the NewNOG name will likely be even less visible than the name Merit has been in the past (or even will be in the future!). -- TTFN, patrick -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding dgold...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:36:04 To: Brian Johnsonbjohn...@drtel.com Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.orgnanog-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 ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG has an Executive Director
On Jan 16, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: Congrats to Betty! i think NANOG really prospered as a Merit program with Betty as program manager. BTW...what does interim mean in this context? The job which was posted posted (publicly, in multiple places, including this list) was for an 18 month interim position. The Board did not feel we were mature enough to make a permanent decision, but we felt we needed stability through the transition period. The 18 month interim position was the compromise we settled upon. Every candidate was told the interim ED would be considered for the permanent position at the end, and would likely have the inside track on the job - assuming they performed their duties well. However, we were very clear the position was interim, and no guarantee was made of employment past the first 18 months even if they did do well. -- TTFN, patrick On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Steven Feldman feld...@newnog.org wrote: I am pleased to announce that the NewNOG board has chosen Betty Burke to serve as our Interim Executive Director. The board's search committee conducted formal interviews with six finalists chosen from a field of sixteen applicants. Many of the applicants were well qualified for the position, but ultimately the full board unanimously decided that Betty is the best fit, given both her qualifications and history with the community. As Interim Executive Director, Betty will be responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of NewNOG as we navigate the transition into a self-sufficient organization, as well as working with the various committees on finance, fundraising, marketing, and other areas. Please join me in welcoming Betty to her new role in the NewNOG community. For the NewNOG board, Steve Feldman, chair ___ 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Sean Figgins wrote: Andy Davidson wrote: A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature community. Let it happen. The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or early for the formal agenda. Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site. A good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee loyalty ( == revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more work. I think that you need to be careful of advertising or promoting this. While it may be expected and accepted that these occur at the meeting, when trying to pitch to your company to send you to a technical conference, it becomes harder to get them to cough up the money when they see it as a large party. NANOG used to be pretty cheap, but from the recent thread, I see that is is now $600 to attend, plus whatever travel costs. At a time where many companies are cutting things like reimbursement (or providing) cell phone and home internet access for their technical staff, sending staff to a party seems out of line. I am intentionally staying out of the back forth so that others do not think I am trying to influence things. However, I wanted to add an objective fact here since no one else seems to have mentioned it. The $600 is only the walk-up fee. NANOG is less if you register earlier, as little as $450. As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research other conferences and compare for themselves. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Webcasting more than the plenary [was: NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast]
On Jun 14, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Joe Provo wrote: On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:39:51AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote: On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote: For those interested, the NANOG Transition Plan session, scheduled for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast. ahem. i presume this will not interfere with the webcasting of the security session. The security session (as with most BOFs/tracks) are not typically webcast or recorded, in order not not discourage candid conversation. It's been that way as long as I can remember. I believe what was an economic concern (back when getting more cameras was such a one) originally kept non-plenary off camera. These days, talk submitters (I believe) have a tickbox to select if/if not, and both peering and security moderators tend to tick not. What I'd love to see would be an icon or column on the agenda showing per-talk if it is intended to be streamed (ie, the submitter's selection be propagated through to the community) such that remote participants can know in advamce if this or that item will be available to them. +1 (I don't normally do AOL posts, but I figured it was important for the PC to know there was support for this idea.) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Update on NANOG Marketing Working Group
Everyone, The NANOG Marketing Working Group has been working hard to help NANOG find new profitable revenue to ensure the meetings keep getting better without raising prices. The group's most active members are: Betty Burke (Merit, SC) Carol Wadsworth (Merit) Greg Dendy Dave Tempkin Martin Levy Martin Hannigan Sylvie Laperriere Steve Feldman (SC) Patrick Gilmore (Chair, SC) The group is making some progress on finding new, innovative sponsorship opportunities for the NANOG meeting which we believe will not interfere with the spirit of the meeting. These include: * Vendor Collaboration Suite Where vendors can allow hands-on experience with their equipment, one- to-one (or few), probably by appointment. This is our highest value sponsorship opportunity as it grants the vendor exclusive access to the NANOG attendees. $15,000/day * Lanyards A sponsor can have their name interleaved with the NANOG logo on the name badge lanyards. $4,000 * Water Bottles Get your logo on water bottles people will carry around during the conference! $ TBD * Break Slides Sponsor name logo will be put up on the projectors during the break. Included in break sponsorship $ TBD * Party Promotion Sponsor's social activity is put onto the official NANOG agenda, announced at the mic at the end of the day it is occurring, and sponsor even has the option of providing tickets which will be handed out with NANOG collateral pack during check-in. $2,000 And more! We encourage feedback from the community on both our ideas and the implementation thereof. And, of course, anyone who wants to help out is encouraged to join the Marketing WG. We are in especially desperate need of a competent chairperson. :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] modest proposal for moderation
On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Note: topic in the presentation room, not topic at the hotel bar ;-) ... which clearly means that you've missed where the real discussions happen. and only want to discuss what has already been discussed The original post also said and is unlikely to be a topic in the NANOG conference, which sounds like it would include anything that is likely to be discussed. Back to the original question: Fair attempt, but I think it falls short. It would be closer to say could possibly be a topic in the conference. But even that falls short, IMHO. There are subjects which are on topic useful for the mailing list which will never be presented. Besides, I think we have a fine system now. The MLC is doing an outstanding job. Do you not agree? (Randy, don't bother answering, I wasn't asking you. We all know your position - same as spammers, JHD. I don't like it when they say it either.) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Call for volunteers: NANOG Marketing Working Group
Everyone, The NANOG Marketing Working Group (MWG) is looking for a few good volunteers! The MWG was created to investigate ways to bring in more sponsor support without changing the spirit of the NANOG meeting. We are looking for additional sponsorship opportunities, that will bring value to the companies donating their money, time and equipment in support of the meeting and also benefits attendees. This is important work, as it will help the overall meeting budget do more for attendees, keep registration fees lower and offset other meeting costs. Some members of the Program and Steering Committees have agreed to volunteer to work on this project. They are Tom Daly, Steve Feldman, Patrick Gilmore, and Sylvie Laperriere. Betty Burke and Carol Wadsworth from Merit are also participating. We would like to ask for some help and input from the community. The time commitment for this work is approximately 2 hours per week for 8 weeks prior to any given meeting and likely 4-6 hours in the week prior to the meeting. (Total commitment would be 20-22 hours in a 2- month span leading up to a meeting.) Please only apply if you can provide the necessary time for this important ongoing, volunteer activity. If you are interested is serving on NANOG's MWG, please e-mail a short (one paragraph) explanation of why you think you can best help out to: nanog-market...@nanog.org . The existing working group will select up to four additional members. Thank you. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments
[Sorry for top post, the Jesus-Phone still needs some work.] If any one cares, I vote for #1. -- TTFN, patrick iPhone 3-J (That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.) On Oct 3, 2008, at 17:45, Steve Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote: ... I notice that the last clean-up point in C turns the power the membership has currently to recommend changes to the charter into the power to actually change the charter. My recollection is that the recommended wording is there because having ultimate authority over the charter was important to Merit, who might agree to change it in response to recommendations. Has that changed? I wrote the draft amendment text, so I can comment on this. I wasn't aware of the reasoning behind the original word choice, and I don't believe that it's clear from context, so I assumed it was unintentional. Looking over the charter, I don't see that Merit's *actual* oversight role is explicitly stated anywhere. A casual reader of the charter (if there is such a thing) would assume that NANOG is pretty much an ordinary membership organization. Perhaps that should be remedied? If so, we'd need another amendment, since that goes beyond minor cleanup. If this is an issue, I can think of a few ways forward: 1. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, and continue the implicit understanding with Merit. 2. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, also add text (maybe in section 1 or 4) explicitly stating Merit's oversight role. 3. Same as #2, and add something giving Merit veto power over amendments. 4. Keep the current recommend (remove the item from the amendment), maintaining status quo. 5. Same as #4, but add explicit wording about Merit's role. Comments? 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] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments
On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Philip Smith wrote: Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment proposals for the October ballot at: http://www.nanog.org/charter/ If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the nanog-futures list or send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the next few days. First, I want the SC to know that someone read and thought about the changes, so they don't think their work was unnoticed or unappreciated. Second, the only comment I have is that I believe a 2/3 super-majority should be required. If I were on the SC, I might feel inhibited from making the right decision if I knew 50%+1 could get me booted. Hrmm, I guess the end result of my post is a no-op. :) Sorry for the noise. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer
On May 5, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Gregory Hicks wrote: From: Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5 May 2008, at 21:47, Scott Weeks wrote: I have been waiting to send this, but please reconsider the Subject line tag and the footer. It is very bothersome. If given a choice, I would opt for neither. But I can't say that I am especially bothered about either, either. I concur. If given a choice, I would opt for neither the subject tag nor the footer - especially given the info given in each message's headers. Delete the the subject tags and footers please. I'll me-too this. Subject line is horrible, terrible, and other ibles. Please, please kill. If you don't stop, I'll whine a lot and annoy you. Footer is a silly waste of electrons and space in my mail archive. I don't like it. If you don't stop, I'll... ignore it. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Charter and crossposting.
On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP. Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with a BCC. BCC'ing the other lists is still cross-posting. -- TTFN, patrick On 3/14/08, Simon Lyall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice that the charter (both and and the new proposal) explicitly bans crossposting to the list. However every week we get: The Cidr Report - Crossposted to 4 others lists BGP Update Report- Crossposted to 5 others lists Weekly Routing Table Report - Crossposted to 5 others lists Could either the policies (now and future) please be updated to either allow these or could the mailing list admins please take measures to stop them occuring. -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures -- Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com ___ 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] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Chris Malayter wrote: Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since. Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're looking for. Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions are not being announced to the community. The question is where we stand in the process. If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an official request for input from the community. If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it ASAP. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. We had a revolution, let's follow our own rules. As Randy like to proclaim every 14 ms, let's have some transparency. What was said, why was it said, and what decisions were made? SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:19 AM, vijay gill wrote: I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it continue, the hours should be expanded to cover a full day. Would you mind expanding upon You cannot see this much level of fail in one place? (I'm not even sure that sentence is English.) My feeling is that you were being sarcastic, trying to imply the peering BoF is full of people who are failing, but it's hard to be certain in this communications medium. If you do not like the Peering BoF, perhaps you could make your reasons more clear? If you like the Peering BoF, sorry I have misinterpreted you. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: AUP modification - full first and last names
On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers to the NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their real name. I'd have to disagree; I think there may be more people who know me as RS than who know my actual first and last name. Of course, you will find both in my From line, but I'm not the only one who has experienced this phenomenon; Richard Stallman and Guy Steele spring immediately to mind. Given that both RS I worked with Michael, and he knows many people know both of us by our aliases, I am surprised he posted that. Especially since mine doesn't even have anything to do with my name. (I had to set up [EMAIL PROTECTED] because so many people didn't know even my first name.) I have had people - working for the same company! - who have commented to people in the halls about that not-an-isp-guy. (Fortunately, in that instance, it was a good comment. :) -- TTFN, patrick
