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

JA - in answer to your commentary not only are you wrong but
you are in fact mistaken about the laws underlying what is
and is not restraint of trade and what would constitute
Antitrust... And as to the Super DCMA laws... in your
response to that no one would do these things - My friend
then the US Department of Justice will implement these laws
around you and you will wind up looking this on the wrong
end of an arrest warrant potentially. I am not worried about
this happening - its already in place. The legislation is
already in place in six US states. All it takes is the first
arrest warrants to be issued.

Look, you seem to think that this evolution is something
that you as a System's Or Network Admin get to, or possibly
can control, and that arrogance is what is justifying
putting these ideas in place. Now - you may not like these
ideas personally, but they are not mine alone, in fact I am
just one of many messengers all saying pretty much the same
thing - and whether you personally like it or not it is very
likely that these things are going to come to happen. This
is evidenced by the legislation in question here.

In response to your statement #2 - I believe this also to be
rather inaccurate. In fact the operational protocols
alliance is no different that any of the participants in
MFN's peering agreements or in the micro groups like
OpenPeering.ORG that are around. In fact its no different
than MERIT's or IANA's operating models, really - so this
commentary is not only wrong its abusive since it seeks to
cast a tone of "illegality" around the commentary to
discredit it.

In answer to the only real question you asked (your comment
#2), i.e. what would happen if your employer wanted to route
a protocol that others did not want to route? Simple - that
protocol would stay within MFN.

By the way were you formally speaking for MFN as their
representative when you coined the abusive term "fantasy

Todd Glassey