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
On 12 Mar 2000, 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. I don't belive I ever stated that any of the existing groups were "broken" nor would I make the claim that they are. I would however question the efforts(if any) that any or all of the above organizations have made towards sastisfactory addressement of these issues. If the problem of NOC<->NOC communication and event handling had been "solved" then we would all be sitting around exchanging email about hypotheticals, would we? > In reality money isn't the biggest issue. I would humbly suggest that you are very much mistaken. In my experience, money is the gating factor in many non-profits, and Internet trade associations are no exception. > VCs were willing to give me lots of money. The real problems were time, > people and information. Money solves at least two out of three of those issues(people and information.) > Companies are more than willing to join new groups, and add their logos > to the membership page. Which is perhaps where this group might differ a bit. There would be reasonable preconditions to joining such as "you must maintain a current contact list where a human can reach someone 24X7X365" or somesuch. It isn't as simple as paying a fee and slapping a logo on your site. This is seemingly the common view of "industry self-regulation" which is a very poor joke. > 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. One problem at a time.... I'd look at the value proposition: if I were to sign up with an organization that guaranteed access to member information and a defined set of processes in event handling, I could reasonably place some value on that capability..... > 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. Either the industry stops playing lip-service to self-regulation or various governments will do it for them.... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|