todd glassey wrote:
Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
Issues with operating network services, and since there are
jail terms being talked about I suggest that these are now
sub-organizations who's time as come.
I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal aspects are relevant to NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is excess in their mailbox and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.
That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
issue though and its important to the global operations of
the bigger picture Internet -
besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's
to hit your customers for more money since you now have
serious legal issues constraining how you architect your
-->[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
-->Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:59 AM
-->Subject: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State
-->Super-DMCA Too True)
-->todd glassey wrote:
-->> Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
-->> splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
-->> Issues with operating network services, and
-->since there are
-->> jail terms being talked about I suggest that
-->these are now
-->> sub-organizations who's time as come.
-->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal
-->aspects are relevant to
-->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is
-->excess in their mailbox
-->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.
Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.
I can host such a list.
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.
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.
You are two days to early.
Actually K - what I am saying now - is exactly what I said
some time ago - that NANOG of all the professional
organizations, has the unique capability of being ***the***
down-on-the-metal BCP's people, otherwise maybe it makes
sense to specifically LIMIT the NANOG charter so that it
wont ever be expanded to address these issues and other orgs
will be formed to address those needs. The question is
really one of whether there is any reason to continue NANOG
if it refuses to expand with the role's requirements for
which it has chosen to stake its claim.
Personally - I believe that NANOG will evolve from just this
mailing list and its current projects to potentially be the
formal keeper here in the US and North America - at least in
an operational sense. Its clear that ICANN and the other
ICANN-ish organizations and the PSO's and the IAB have
really no idea what is going on in a collective sense. And
that's because they are just idea houses. This is the place
where the ideas hit practice and that's what makes NANOG so
Dr. Susan - you and I have differed politically on NANOG and
its roles and have come to "paper blows" over it and I
apologize for that, but what I was trying to point out to
you and the NANOG Sponsorship there at Merit, is that we are
on the cusp of some real changes in how we as a culture and
a race deal with each other electronically, and that if
NANOG is not in the midst of it then..., nay if NANOG s not
directing the charge then it will be directed by it, and I
don't think that is what anyone here wants.
This is not me predicting doom - but rather a change in what
scopes are important to this Internet thing and its
Just my two cents.
In the immortal words of Jack Bates (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However,
there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system,
and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of
legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.
If the word "offtopic" is bugging people, I'll happily alias or change
the name to nanog-nonoperational, or whatever floats your boat.
"Very funny, Space Moose."
If you want to splinter off to lists that already
exist and actually have a number of NANOG
participants, can I recommend
Cybertelecom-l : federal initiatives that impact the
Internet with an emphasis on the FCC
Cyberia-l : general rabble about Internet law with
lots of intellectual property bickering