On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Justin Shore wrote:
David W. Hankins wrote:
I think the current state of the art in civilized, peaceful, extralegal negotiation of reasonable behaviour expected of businessmen and their peers is a form of social ostracism given its name in 1880 when the Irish Land League bade everyone in Mayo county, Ireland not to engage economically or otherwise with Captain Charles Boycott...a land owner who had set his rent very high, and was evicting anyone who deigned to complain of it (fully within his legal authority, but outside the realms of what the people saw as reasonable).
If anyone can think of better, we'll have to call it "Intercaging".
Since the usefulness of this thread to NANOG is becoming less and less as the thread wears on, where would the NANOG community suggest that it be moved to? What are the good SP operational security mailing lists? What groups or forums would one find threads like this? The NANOG ISP security BOF group? I would like to do a much better job of keeping up on things of this nature. I already spend a great deal of time on it but I know that I'm missing a plethora of other security issues. What group would be interested in knowing that whois.estdomains.com (83.171.76.99) is now being hosted by as31353 via as8997 (didn't we have a small problem with 8997 the other day?)? I'd love to find the good lists and forums for this type of discussion, preferably with a SP slant. Perhaps that info will help move the discussion to more appropriate places.
Thanks Justin
For the duration of this thread and others like it, I have to step back and wonder why is it when operational issues that some don't like to talk about come up, why they're often shifted to some form of offtopic status: "Well it doesn't do me any good therefore we should move it off the list!" This is and was relevant to issues such as botnets which (drum roll) affect network operations to even Denial of Service attacks which I can recall the urge to move to offtopic land going back to pre Y2K. What are the terms? Status Quo Bias, Selective Recall, Groupthink, False Consensus, Herding Instinct. Randy makes a good point as do others involved in the operations decisions but the decision should be based on realistic input from everyone, not just those who conform to someone's specific liking. I'm no judge and jury to implicity cut off someone's connectivity nor is anyone else and this entire situation is akin to a lynching like the verbiage or not. While I agree that rogue providers and hosts need to be dealt with, the issue needs to be addressed by everyone in order to show there was accuracy and fairness not just the "good old boy" networked approach. Not solely using the Groupthink approach. Perhaps this would have been better dealt with if there was a mechanism in place to have all vote together or perhaps a committee need be created where these issues can be resolved diplomatically and efficiently which stays far and clear of the Not In My Back Yard attitude. Business deals are business deals like them or not. If you made a strategic decision based on what you thought was appropriate at the time, how would YOU like it if someone came to YOUR backyard protesting "Oh no you don't!". "A man's judgement cannot be better than the information on which he has based it" Arthur Sulzberger Perhaps whatever company decided whatever decision they made based on the best information available to them at the time. Is it fair for you to cut off their arm without getting their end of the view before cutting off their arm. Then complaining its not in your best interest to hear their case. I hope for someone's sake you're never a juror for them. I'd always had this impression that NANOG was the de-facto place where experts would get together to make strategic decisions, set forth best practices, provide in-depth information on policies, etc., with regards to Internet operations. It's beginning to look like the description of the intelligence agencies skewing matters to their own likings in order to go to war. In order to justify their own agendas. Whether or not the agenda has meat and substance is not even being weighed I see nothing more than confirmation bias, selective recall, and the list goes on, but nowhere do I see anything other than a witchhunt right now. Place yourself in a situation like this and ask what would you like to have some body of (so called) experts do. Would you enjoy it if others ran around trying to hush any naysayer that didn't conform to your views. Would it be fair, would it truly be diplomatic. Maybe some need to take a good look at this and create a solution for future potential problems. Perhaps a rotating board of decision makers who would unbiasedly take a good look at a situation and offer a variety of solutions in which those solutions would need to be voted in (for lack of better terms) by a vast majority without that vast majority whining: "Oh shut up if you're not going to see things my way!" then siding with friends and colleagues or peers out of pressure. My unwanted two cents for the year. -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP "A good district attorney can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to ... The accusations harm as much as the convictions ... they're obviously harmful or it wouldn't be news.." - John Carter wget -qO - www.infiltrated.net/sig|perl http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3AC173DB