Internet affiliations (and settlements)

X-Sender: bob@kelmscott.com
From: bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com (Bob Metcalfe)
>From: jerry <jerry@fc.net>
>You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of
>offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit
>kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum
>where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn
>about problems and fix them.
>
Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet
Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG?
Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is
IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org.

That's a lot of questions. The history is complicated.

Briefly, there was a long debate about whether the network operations
should be directly affiliated as a seaprate group under the IAB, back
when that was the "Activities Board". There appeared to be consensus
that this was not the correct direction. And thus, various independent
groups have arisen on their own.

The ISoc is not involved. Indeed, the IETF is not affiliated with ISoc.

The ISoc is currently a separate educational and outreach Internet
organization. In some respects, it is beginning to serve a fundraising
and administrative role as well, but these are strictly limited at this
time. There is considerable trepidation on the parts of the volunteer,
engineering, vendor and operators about the extent of this role.

This is a current topic for discussion in the Poised WG in the IETF, and
you are certainly welcome to participate in that forum.

>Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do
>much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters
>is just plan wrong of the face of it.
>...
Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy
defensive to argue?

Well, several years ago I collected the practical considerations about
settlements into "Settlements Considered Harmful". The technical and
economic problems are well known. I never got around to polishing and
publishing the RFC. I _was_ too busy. Now, if someone would PAY me to
write them, more might get finished.... Until then, I'll stick with
getting higher priority work done. Sorry.

WSimpson@UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson@MorningStar.com
    Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2