North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

  • From: Krzysztof Adamski
  • Date: Sun Mar 30 21:55:54 2003

You are two days to early.

K

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

> 
> Rafi
> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
> not all at once.
> 
> The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and
> they would create and debate the issues of network operator
> BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of
> documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to
> develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially
> security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report
> to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability
> of new materials.
> 
> The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all
> intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group
> but the conversations would be very different so I think
> that two lists might be necessary if they are the same
> group - but who knows.
> 
> ---
> 
> And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
> consortium of networking providers really do run the
> Internet here in North America... and this would be done by
> creating agreements on what is and is not routed between the
> members of this little tribunal so to speak. The membership
> would be limited to a representative to each carrier that
> was a participant in this program. And all participants
> would agree to limit their routed protocols to the approved
> "list". These players would also get to approve those work
> products developed in the Operations WG as operational
> standards too.
> 
> Think this through before you say no. This is the golden
> opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it
> properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland
> Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart
> beat.  Please chew on this last idea for a while before you
> say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This
> is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it
> should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.
> 
> Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of
> you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is
> until the law figures them out and also these new laws will
> mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance
> and auditing capability.
> 
> Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our
> actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as
> they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather
> that being two steps behind them its better to see them
> coming and stay two steps ahead.
> 
> Todd Glassey
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
> True)
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> 
>  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> 
> 
> --
> 	Rafi
> 
> 
> 
> ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:
> 
> JM>
> JM>
> JM> 	Hello,
> JM>
> JM> 	Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let
> me know.
> JM>
> JM> 	I can host such a list.
> JM>
> JM> 	- Jared
> JM>
> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey
> wrote:
> JM> >
> JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a
> real
> JM> > issue though and its important to the global
> operations of
> JM> > the bigger picture Internet -
> JM> >
> [snipped]
> 
>