North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Hi, we're from the government and we're here to help

  • From: Henry R. Linneweh
  • Date: Mon Mar 13 03:45:39 2000

hmm interesting perspective, I will keep this in mind....

Sean Donelan wrote:

> On Fri, 10 March 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > I believe this to be such a common communication protocol and procedures
> > for handling issues to be of great necessity and desireability. If 10% of
> > the vast number of people that have expressed their opinions on these
> > issues were each willing to put up a little money, we could solve this
> > problem once and for all.
> I used to work for a company which spent several hundred thousand dollars
> every year on memberships to various groups, and more money to send
> people to various meetings.  My question always is when somone proposes
> forming yet another group, which groups should I drop my support so I
> can join your new group?
> If all the existing groups are broken, CERT, CIX, CNRI, FIRST, IETF, IOPS,
> NANOG, RIPE, etc, can any of them be fixed?  Or is a new group the only
> option.
> In reality money isn't the biggest issue.  I was naive once, and created
> a business plan for a new group.  ISPs and VCs were willing to give me
> lots of money.  The real problems were time, people and information.
> Companies are more than willing to join new groups, and add their logos
> to the membership page.  But too often their engineers are told they are
> not allowed to contribute or acknowledge any issues or problems.  All
> they can do is say "Here" when roll is called.
> I can start setting up the infrastructure tommorrow, but until something
> happens to permanently scare the heck out of the boards and stockholders,
> any new group will just be a shell.

Thank you;
| Thinking is a learned process so is UNIX   |
Henry R. Linneweh