- Test - lists.nanog.org

RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 23 May '02

23 May '02

DNSO General Assembly RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002 23 May 2002 RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002 Re: b12 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-ICANN-Reform-motions.html Fundamentals - Two Rules for votes by the GA: A. Voting Rules adopted by the GA on 6 July 2000: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html B. Election Rules (Instant Runoff) adopted by the GA on 23 March 2001: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html Vote Tally: 1. Electorate: 586 persons in Voting Roster, when the ballot was prepared http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.rosterindex.html 2. Number of ballots received: 218 , Number of casted votes: 433 3. Participation: 37.2% 4. Vote results: Numbers: 148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC") 54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1 15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1 164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles") 33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2 19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2 --------------------------------------------- 433 TOTAL casted votes Percentages: 67.9% : I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC") 24.8% : I vote AGAINST Motion 1 6.9% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1 75.2% : I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles") 15.1% : I vote AGAINST Motion 2 8.7% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2 5. Vote records: The calculations using Voting Rules are published in: http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html.

1 0

Who posts to the nanog list -- The top 59 players (Was not: Re: list problems?)
by Martin J. Levy 23 May '02

23 May '02

Hi all, Somewhat related to the previous subject, but bringing it much closer to the operational aspects of the nanog e-mail list, I present this data.... It only took a few commands to build a count of articles posted to the nanog list over the last 17 months (Jan 2001 to the present day). I sorted them based upon the total count of messages (highest first). I only included the first 59 names. If the e-mail shows up with wrapped lines, then you can find the same information at http://www.mahtin.com/nanog-count.txt which should be easy to read in an unwrapped manner. Note that as some people posting using different real-names in the SMTP headers, there are minor errors in this list. ( "bmanning" missed counting some of "Bill Manning" or "bill manning" posted messages and "Richard A. Steenbergen" and "Richard A Steenbergen" are really the same person). I can't help it if people change their e-mail setups. ;-) Enjoy the data. Martin ----------------------------------------------------- # E-MAIL NAME COUNT 2001-01 2001-02 2001-03 2001-04 2001-05 2001-06 2001-07 2001-08 2001-09 2001-10 2001-11 2001-12 2002-01 2002-02 2002-03 2002-04 2002-05 1 Sean Donelan 534 68 34 17 44 16 51 24 20 91 36 38 27 6 13 24 17 8 2 Roeland Meyer 371 44 13 51 37 64 - 38 63 61 - - - - - - - - 3 Valdis.Kletnieks 231 14 9 20 6 23 12 15 29 18 22 8 7 7 10 6 10 15 4 Randy Bush 214 18 14 10 6 10 21 6 28 33 13 14 11 9 6 4 5 6 5 John Fraizer 205 18 32 19 31 26 8 10 24 37 - - - - - - - - 6 E.B. Dreger 147 - - - - 12 15 1 8 19 22 5 5 11 1 9 12 27 7 Paul Vixie 128 13 8 1 - 9 7 1 4 12 22 9 - 1 5 4 16 16 8 Shawn McMahon 127 15 16 34 14 48 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 Richard A. Steenbergen 127 17 8 5 26 23 40 8 - - - - - - - - - - 10 Dan Hollis 127 6 2 4 14 29 4 8 6 10 5 3 1 8 4 1 1 21 11 David Schwartz 122 - 2 32 13 22 12 4 10 8 3 1 - 1 4 3 3 4 12 Greg A. Woods 115 20 14 16 21 8 18 2 5 1 3 - - - - - - 7 13 Scott Francis 113 - 1 25 4 16 2 8 3 4 3 2 6 2 4 1 3 29 14 bmanning 108 15 5 3 9 14 2 4 6 14 4 7 - 6 3 4 8 4 15 Sean M. Doran 106 - - - 9 15 7 - 24 25 6 3 - 1 2 8 5 1 16 Stephen J. Wilcox 105 3 6 10 3 11 3 10 3 10 - - - 1 10 9 6 20 17 Daniel Golding 101 1 5 3 1 7 8 11 6 15 7 9 5 3 4 3 9 4 18 Leo Bicknell 100 3 3 - 1 - 9 5 28 23 12 4 2 2 1 2 1 4 19 Hank Nussbacher 100 12 14 10 7 2 6 5 4 14 8 4 3 1 - 3 2 5 20 Patrick Greenwell 98 7 7 30 2 2 1 1 17 10 4 8 7 2 - - - - 21 Alex Rubenstein 98 1 7 2 2 9 16 7 3 18 4 8 - 3 5 2 3 8 22 Vadim Antonov 94 3 1 12 - 2 - - 25 22 6 3 1 - 13 3 1 2 23 Bill Woodcock 93 9 8 3 5 11 5 10 1 4 3 2 1 5 2 8 10 6 24 Steven J. Sobol 92 4 6 3 1 1 8 8 16 14 8 - 1 4 - 4 3 11 25 Richard A Steenbergen 92 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 19 27 44 26 Christopher A. Woodfield 92 2 - 3 1 11 20 12 13 - 12 5 3 3 7 - - - 27 mike harrison 89 - 3 5 16 12 9 5 10 10 5 2 4 - 1 3 2 2 28 Mitch Halmu 88 - - - - 30 3 14 23 2 - - - - - - 1 15 29 Marshall Eubanks 88 10 2 9 5 3 3 11 5 23 4 2 - - - - 6 5 30 Jared Mauch 88 7 5 4 2 5 7 2 2 8 7 5 3 9 10 3 4 5 31 Deepak Jain 87 3 7 2 1 2 14 4 2 14 2 4 - 3 10 9 7 3 32 Steve Sobol 85 12 13 10 6 34 3 - 1 - - - - - 1 4 1 - 33 David Lesher 85 9 10 5 2 11 6 3 4 13 4 1 3 1 4 2 7 - 34 Steven M. Bellovin 84 10 6 14 - 1 1 3 9 13 6 5 2 4 5 4 1 - 35 Jim Mercer 80 3 2 6 13 12 11 3 6 11 - - - - 6 1 5 1 36 Alex Bligh 76 3 3 - 1 6 3 3 18 21 7 10 1 - - - - - 37 Eric A. Hall 73 10 6 9 6 14 4 - 3 6 1 - - 5 3 - 1 5 38 jlewis 69 9 5 4 1 5 1 3 16 4 3 2 - 1 5 2 4 4 39 Stephen Griffin 69 1 6 1 6 5 4 3 - - 1 - 1 10 7 1 3 20 40 Iljitsch van Beijnum 69 - - - - - - - 8 7 21 7 - - 5 5 7 9 41 Patrick W. Gilmore 65 1 - - - 3 2 - 2 40 13 2 - - - 2 - - 42 measl 64 - - - - - - - 9 16 4 9 4 1 4 3 7 7 43 Mike Batchelor 63 - - 17 3 4 1 5 7 5 16 2 2 - 1 - - - 44 Adam Rothschild 63 7 11 5 1 10 4 3 6 4 4 - - 1 1 1 2 3 45 Charles Sprickman 58 3 3 6 2 5 5 5 8 13 3 3 2 - - - - - 46 Joe Abley 57 - 2 4 3 2 14 - 1 5 5 1 1 8 2 4 3 2 47 Matt Levine 56 7 1 4 5 2 9 3 2 9 4 4 1 2 - 1 2 - 48 Majdi S. Abbas 56 2 5 2 7 4 5 9 7 7 - 2 2 1 - 1 1 1 49 Christian Kuhtz 56 1 1 1 2 2 5 5 18 11 3 3 1 - - 1 2 - 50 Simon Lockhart 55 8 7 4 1 3 7 2 - 7 4 - 1 2 - - 4 5 51 Adrian Chadd 55 13 10 7 6 8 - - - - - 3 - 1 - - 7 - 52 Greg Maxwell 54 - - - 19 10 - 3 14 1 2 - - - 2 2 1 - 53 William Allen Simpson 53 2 2 7 - 6 3 10 2 - 8 1 - - 3 9 - - 54 John Payne 52 10 6 11 - 10 2 1 1 4 5 1 - - - 1 - - 55 alex 51 - 1 3 9 2 2 10 2 10 5 - 4 - - 2 - 1 56 Adam McKenna 50 5 4 4 1 6 1 7 1 5 7 6 - - - 1 - 2 57 Simon Higgs 49 - - 19 - - - - - - - 6 4 6 6 2 4 2 58 Mikael Abrahamsson 46 6 2 - 2 6 11 2 5 4 4 2 - - - 1 - 1 59 Ralph Doncaster 45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45

3 2

Strange Bandwidth drop: 5/21 14:00 to 5/22 02:00: Any one else see it
by Larry Rosenman 23 May '02

23 May '02

Looking at our graphs, we saw a very significant drop in our inbound bandwidth from Tuesday, 21/May/2002 14:00 (UTC -0500) to 22/May/2002 02:00 (UTC -0500). We can't explain it from internal sources. Did anyone else see this? Does anyone have an explanation? Thanks, LER -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(a)lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

2 1

Re: Certification or College degrees? Was: RE: list problems?
by Petr M. Swedock 23 May '02

23 May '02

: : Vadim Antonov <avg(a)exigengroup.com> : : : > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Kristian P. Jackson wrote: : > : >> Perhaps a bachelors in network : >> engineering is in order? : : I'm afraid there's not enough stuff one has to know to sucessfully : "design" networks to fill more than one-semester course. One should not design networks. Designing networks is not a solitary activity. One should be part of a team that works to design networks. That team should be made up of people who know many and divers things. You are not far off the mark, however: There's not enough stuff, not contained in other coursework, to fill more than one-semester course in networking. That is just to say that 'networking' is not a fundamental discipline in the same way as math, or chemistry might be but is an amalgam of intersecting skills and disciplines that are easily found elsewhere. The engineers I admire and respect all combine analytical skills (math), understanding of the physical layer (electrical engineering, physics), financial and resource allocation (economics), building fitout (mechanical engineering, architecture) and computers (those things that sit at the nodes of the networks...) AND they are constantly striving to better understand the relationships between all those things. None of the engineers I respect and admire, came by the depth and breadth of their skill not by walking a linear path but rather by wandering hither and yon... cataloguing as they went. School made sense for many, less so for others... The pivotal advice I received was regarding a decision to stay, or leave, the small college I was attending and to get an engineering degree at a larger college. My physics professor argued thusly: "You can get and engineering degree and be an engineer, or you can get a physics degree and be anything." Peace, Petr -- petr(a)mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/petr http://lids.mit.edu ____________________________________________________________ You can design simply, or you can design for simplicity. The first requires a fear of complexity only. The second requires an understanding of complexity. Choice is yours ------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
by Paul Vixie 23 May '02

23 May '02

> > I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. [...] > > Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...] we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories, we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful for engineering purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy. but if there's interest, we'll find the old paperwork and shuffle it anew. -- Paul Vixie <vixie(a)eng.paix.net> President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)

6 6

Re: Certification or College degrees?
by Joe 23 May '02

23 May '02

After reading this thread I had to include my thoughts regarding this. Certifications/Degrees can be good, but they should not be regarded as a degree of skill. If employers only wish to look at those items (Certs/Degrees) then it becomes yet another political agenda and further delays the success of a company's goal or target. This of course is not the case for all Certifided folks but none the less. I'll never forget the day (years ago) I walked into work and saw a MCSE with a look like a deer stuck in the headlights of a tractor trailor about to be hit. Yes, a a Cert did a great job there as hundreds of people couldn't access email of months and months, while the fix for this was to call MS support and wait on hold only to be told that the backup of the email was corrupt. Unconventional methods of a non-certifided were able to recover the lost data. Not to generalize here, but most of the Certified folks I have worked with are what we consider "paper tigers". If its not in the text book then your in trouble. I'll agree that a Degree will help perhaps in the finer items for the overall picture of a network but I'll not say it makes one a network engineer or expert. The only thing I found useful with college was that it helped when explaining what I do or plan to do to management. Well, you just have to love those job postings that say "CCIE + MCSE + CCNE + A++ preferred" and note to sell or not buy that stock. just my 2¢s -Joe (No certs)

1 0

Re: Certification or College degrees?
by Jeffrey Meltzer 23 May '02

23 May '02

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:35:22PM -0500, Blake Fithen wrote: > Usually what you say is helpful. I have to disagree with > you here though. A few things I learned in a CIS degree program > which apply to networking: Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, there are schools which have Networking programs..For instance, New York Institute of Technology has an AAS in Telecommunications Technology and a BS in Telecommunications Management. Classes include multiple Voice & Data classes, as well as Wireless Networking, Traffic Management, Network Management, LAN/WAN/MAN, Telecom Law/Policy, as well as a slew of Electronics and CompSci classes... All very useful for foundations, and pretty interesting...At least I found it useful and worth the money... Jeff

2 1

RE: Certification or College degrees?
by Blake Fithen 23 May '02

23 May '02

Replies inline.. > From: Bruce Pinsky [mailto:bep@whack.org] > Blake Fithen wrote: > >>Stephen Sprunk > >>Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel(a)forever-networks.com> > >> > >>If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree > >>won't help you > >>in the slightest at operating networks. > > > > Usually what you say is helpful. I have to disagree with > > you here though. A few things I learned in a CIS degree program > > which apply to networking: > > > > bits/bytes/megabytes [deletia] > In the end, however, being inquisitive, resourceful, and > self-motivated, far > outweigh "book knowledge". It's not about knowing the > answers but rather > knowing where to go to get the answers. You may learn that I agree. I just wanted to attempt to negate Sprunk's statement above. > bep -- blake

1 0

Re: Certification or College degrees? Was: RE: list problems?
by Bram Dov Abramson 23 May '02

23 May '02

zerocool(a)netpath.net: >Valdis is from VT, so I hope he's listening. Why >couldn't we as a networking community sit down and come up with a degree >program that goes from BS to PhD? Sure it can touch on basic programming >and basic processor design, but it would be more heavily weighted towards >utilizing technologies on the market and creating solutions to the common >programs. It could be a mix between the CCIE, Net+, etc. Because I know >my Comp Engineering program doesn't touch on anything related at all to >networking, and never even mentions the idea of security. So why not >create a focused area for this? cf Internet Engineering Curriculum Repository http://www.caida.org/outreach/iec/ MEng Internetworking http://www.dal.ca/~eine/index.html cheers Bram

2 1

list problems?
by Ralph Doncaster 23 May '02

23 May '02

Do the merit servers have a habit of dropping some messages? I sent a message this morning that never made it to the list: May 22 08:41:03 cpu1693 postfix/qmgr[9876]: 6AC4D17030: from=<ralph(a)istop.com>,size=1108, nrcpt=1 (queue active) May 22 08:41:04 cpu1693 postfix/smtp[5066]: 6AC4D17030: to=<nanog(a)merit.edu>, relay=mail.merit.edu[198.108.1.41], delay=1, status=sent (250 Ok: queued as 653EA5DD9A) Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc.

7 11