strawman for discussion in Ann Arbor


As many of you have noticed there is an agenda item for the Ann Arbor
Regional Techs meeting dealing with the future of the regional techs.

The regional techs is a useful forum for coordinating the US Internet,
it has participation by most US Internet providers including the
regional techs, CIX members, ANS, US Federal Network operators, etc.
Thus in some way, the name "regional-techs" does not do fully reflect
the membership of the regional-techs mailing list and the attendees of
the regional-techs meetings. Merit has done an excellent job of
organizing the regional techs from the beginning, and running the mailing
list and meetings as a function of the NSFNET project to date.
It seems to me that the regional techs will continue to exist,
independant of whatever occurs due to the result of the pending NSFNET
solicitation and awards. In that spirit I would like to put forward
the following outline of a strawman proposal:

  Regional Techs relabels itself to US-NOGIN, the US
    Network Operators Group for InterNet.
    (the actual name is subject to change ...)

  US-NOGIN organized in an ad hoc manner. This
    would leave it with the current constiuency and with
    an open "membership"

  Central topics for US-NOGIN:

    Coordination of US NIC functionality
      relationship to top level NIC

    Coordination of US Routing Coordination
      Routing Registries
      Technology Deployment
      Inter Provider coordination
      Info sharing

    Interexchange coordination (e.g. Mae-East, etc.)
      (network operators as customers of NSFNET NAPs)

  Structure of US-NOGIN meetings:
    Organizers of each meeting selected by US-NOGIN, would
      circulate on a meeting by meeting basis, probably
      based on what the pressing issues at that time were.
    Location: try to collocate with other meetings:
      IETF, InterOp, etc.

  Relationship with other organizations:
    Peer with RIPE, etc. as members of a federation which
      constitutes the IEPG.
    Loose (undefined, but recognized) overlapping relationships
      with FEPG, CIX, FARNET, etc.

    Funding -- most costs are carried by membership and
      sponsors of meetings.

  Other operational issues?
    trouble resolution
    NOC to NOC handoff
    operational standards/IETF ORAD activities
    information sharing

I would welcome any feedback, especially if someone would like to help
flesh this out.

cheers and see you in A**2,