Old NANOG (NSF Techs?) Meeting notes.

I was just enjoying myself reading through the notes from previous NANOGs,
and there is a reference in one:

from http://www.academ.com/nanog/feb1997/welcome.html

  "NANOG started as the NSFNET Regional Techs meeting in 1988. In
  1994 during the privatization of the Internet, NANOG evolved from
  the NSFNET Regional Techs meetings. The purpose of both groups was
  to provide a forum for the exchange of information on the
  operation of the Internet."

So, my question is, are there any notes for the meetings from the Regional
Techs meeting? Just curious.

After reading these notes, we've come a *long* way.

I was just enjoying myself reading through the notes from previous NANOGs,
and there is a reference in one:

from http://www.academ.com/nanog/feb1997/welcome.html

"NANOG started as the NSFNET Regional Techs meeting in 1988. In
1994 during the privatization of the Internet, NANOG evolved from
the NSFNET Regional Techs meetings. The purpose of both groups was
to provide a forum for the exchange of information on the
operation of the Internet."

So, my question is, are there any notes for the meetings from the Regional
Techs meeting? Just curious.

I don't think there was ever anything formal. I imagine a few folks could
dig around and come up with their personal notes. Although as I think about
it, I kind of remember the Merit folks videotaping at least one of the
meetings in the north campus union building - but that was a large number
of all nighters ago so who knows how faulty my recollection might be.
(It was well before MBone days which started at the San Diego IETF I think).

After reading these notes, we've come a *long* way.

Well, the meetings are certainly quite a bit larger now - like an order
of magnitude. (but that's slower growth than the Internet). Some of the
challenges are the same, they just take a different form. We were
certainly much more cooperative - not that there weren't regular
disagreements, but we certainly had a stronger sense of shared fate
since there wasn't overlap in geographical coverage (typically) and
we were facing pretty much the same issues across the board.

            dave