This is also a good idea, in the sense that if we keep the agenda for the group to specific topics related to actual implementation of the interconnection of networks, an open participation will probably be the best way. So anyone from any country could participate. Mark
From: peter@goshawk.lanl.gov To: roll@bsd.stupi.se (Peter Lothberg) CC: regional-techs@merit.edu, boss@sunet.se
I think the critical component for any successful forum is whether or not the agenda is relevent to the people participating in the forum. As such there are really few technical and operational differences between GIX and NAP issues. It is really just an incidental difference in where you are operating in the global Internet mesh. Currently there is a single root (the mesh is at this point is close to a tree and the GIX is very close to being the root), but over time this will diffuse, and each party will probably root a hierarchical routing tree out of the mesh by logically pulling themselves up to the root.
In this sense the nature of regionally defined vrs globally defined boundaries in terms of GIX/NAP and IEPG/{RIPE, US-NOGIN, PAC-NOGIN, LATIN-NOGIN, etc.} are somewhat artificial. They are still useful since they provide a mechanism for reasonable meeting sizes and scoping of discussions, containment of costs for participating in meetings (e.g. travel), and allows for taking advantage of regional initiatives (U.S. NII, European CEC, etc.) and regional differences in terms of operational context.
I would think it best if the boundaries between global and regional NOGINs are kept in an ad-hoc manner.
cheers, peter