February 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
by Brandon Butterworth 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

> What if the UN says ITU should run the TLDs, ICANN says yes, and, a > significant portion of the operational internet says no? Nothing happened beyond a bit of noise on mailing lists when ICANN did their coup, why should anything happen now? Now ICANN are ramping up their domain tax to fund the increasing overhead they are imposing, who will tax less ICANN or ITU? brandon

2 1

Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
by Ross 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

No government will ever have the internet's best intrest in mind when they talk about controlling it. Luckily government control has been kept some what to a minimum so far but it's growing rapidly and this is another attempt for a government body to "control" the internet. I wonder what new rules will be put in place if the ITU gets control? I also wonder if the ITU can really take control. What if the U.N. says the ITU should run the TLD's and ICANN says no? On Mon Feb 21 18:15:00 PST 2005, Joel Jaeggli <joelja @darkwing.uoregon.edu=""> wrote:</joelja> > When I hear Robert Mugabe talk about internet governance I don't really > get the impression that he has the interests of the people of Zimbabwe at > heart. > > joelja > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:45:12 -0500, Scott W Brim wrote: >>> > I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and >>> > >>> > email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing >>> > phenomenon. >>> > >>> It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the Internet >> >> i was probably too cryptic. yes, they are using the term 'web' to mean 'the internet'. >> >> the problem is that professional writing needs to be careful, and a failure at such a basic level as using web to apply to email does not bode well for the utility of the article... >> >> >> d/ >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> +1.408.246.8253 >> dcrocker a t ... >> WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net >> > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu > GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 >

3 2

NANOG Changes
by Betty Burke 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Hi everyone - apologies for a rather long message, but I wanted to bring you up-to-date on some steps the Program Committee and Merit have taken to evolve NANOG since our community meeting in Las Vegas. *Many thanks* to those of you who attended and gave us feedback - we learned a lot and look forward to working with all of you to maintain the high standards we have come to expect from NANOG. For now, I'd like to announce a few changes that will get us started. First, the NANOG list will now be moderated by a volunteer group that includes Marty Hannigan, Steve Gibbard, and Chris Malayter. Many thanks to these folks for taking on this role in upholding the list's AUP. Susan Harris and Sue Joiner will represent Merit on the committee. Moderation decisions will be made by the entire group with a Chair appointed within the group to keep the peace:> Second, the NANOG Program Committee has elected a new chair - thank you Steve Feldman! Steve will now handle speaker communications that deal with content, and will make any last-minute decisions about what to include on the agenda. Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line for moving us forward. Finally, to get your input on content for NANOG agendas, the Program Committee will soon release a survey asking for your feedback regarding the kind of talks you'd like to see at upcoming meetings. You'll find a link to the survey soon on the main NANOG page. Lastly, we've also published the results of the 2004 attendee surveys that were conducted in Miami, San Francisco, and Reston. (The Las Vegas results are still being tabulated.) All future survey results will continue to be posted as soon as they are available. In the past we've shared these results with the Program Committee, and hope making them widely available will give you some insight on what's been suggested so far, and what more still needs to be done. To that end, members of the PC and Merit will be doing a thoughtful analysis of previous survey data. Our goal is to provide responsive feedback in order to expedite the process up to full throttle. Thanks everyone - we'll be in touch. Betty

12 17

Summary: Fortigate 300A
by Priyantha P Kumara 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Thanks for all the responses. (However, I didn't get as much responses as I expected) Here is the summary: Total responses Received: 05 (including one works for a Fortigate competitor and one for a reseller) Comments varies from "very bad product" to "I'm impressed". Certain GUI problems were mentioned. Also mentioned that it was not capable of handling Dial-up traffic. Works fine as a managed firewall for an ISP. Operates fine in both transparent and routing/NAT modes * The bottom Line: Acceptable product, watch-out for some GUI pit-falls. We however, decided to go for it -- Priyantha P Kumara ----------------------- Network Services Manager Wightman Internet

1 0

Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

Methinks they've already taken it... - ferg -- Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> wrote: Perhaps its time to give them the web so that we can have the internet back? -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

RE: NANOG Changes
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Michel Py > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 4:20 PM > To: William Allen Simpson; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: NANOG Changes > > > > > William Allen Simpson wrote: > > Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the > > bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. > > It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor > > (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). > > I introduced this important division to the IETF many years > > ago.... > > Since they accepted the moderation function, they've > > disqualified themselves from the drafting function. > [ snip ] >As I was browsing the archive, I > noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon > that quoted > mine have been removed from it. >From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. -M<

2 1

RE: NANOG Changes
by Michel Py 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

> Paul Vixie wrote: > I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform > community accepting responsibility for provisional > moderation (a form of interim governance), So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of the nanog-reform community. > Perception isn't *actually* reality, [for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post] I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the context I wrote it: > but in politics (which this is) the difference between > perception and reality is just not worth discussing. For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the nanog-reform community can be found in two places: 1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/ > List Administration Group > Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself, > with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic. > Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where > that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration > group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list > administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow > policies set by the board. They should be people with an > understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic > and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer > discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is > really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken. > There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions 2. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws > 7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection > The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG > mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2). > 8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered > and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee. > William Allen Simpson wrote: > Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the > bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. > It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor > (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). Being one of the "bylaws drafters" I agree with this. Michel.

7 7

RE: NANOG Changes
by Betty Burke 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

All: Reminder, if you sent an email regarding NANOG changes to either list (NANOG or NANOG-Futures) between Thursday (Feb. 17) and Saturday (Feb. 20), the list archive was not working yet. Sorry about the disruption and loss. Please resend your email privately to nanog-support(a)merit.edu. We will make sure to add all mail received to the nanog-futures archive. Thanks for your support:> Betty

1 0

RE: NANOG Changes
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Nash [mailto:billn@billn.net] > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:53 PM > To: Hannigan, Martin > Cc: William Allen Simpson; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: NANOG Changes > > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > [ snip ] > > > >> As I was browsing the archive, I > >> noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon > >> that quoted > >> mine have been removed from it. > > > >> From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until > > just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. > > > > So, now that archiving is on (for those of us reading the > archive instead > of subbing to the traffic), can those posts be resubmitted > for the sake of > posterity? Bill; Let me correct a mischaracterization. I have nothing to do with any technical or administrative issue on nanog-futures. I'm just a poster like anyone else. As far as the nanog-futures archive goes? You'd think it would be a relatively simple operation to add something that's missing. How about just resending it as a "historical note" and if some person feels really strongly that it must be authenticated, by all means, PGP sign it. -M<

1 0

Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

I forgot to reference an (ironic) article that Reuters posted back in July 2004 entitled "U.N. Internet Policy Off Course, Pioneer Says"... The only reference I can find of it at the moment is: http://www.undp.org.vn/mlist/ksdvn/072004/post42.htm which is culled from the United Nations Development Programme, Knowledge Systems in Development (Viet Nam) mailing list. - ferg [snip] My favorite quote(s) from this very brief article: "Right now, the most recognizable Internet governance body is a California-based non-profit company, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)." "But developing countries want an international body, such as the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to have control over governance -- from distributing Web site domains to fighting spam." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=20… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0