You are two days to early. K On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:
Rafi I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe not all at once.
The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and they would create and debate the issues of network operator BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability of new materials.
The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group but the conversations would be very different so I think that two lists might be necessary if they are the same group - but who knows.
---
And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a consortium of networking providers really do run the Internet here in North America... and this would be done by creating agreements on what is and is not routed between the members of this little tribunal so to speak. The membership would be limited to a representative to each carrier that was a participant in this program. And all participants would agree to limit their routed protocols to the approved "list". These players would also get to approve those work products developed in the Operations WG as operational standards too.
Think this through before you say no. This is the golden opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart beat. Please chew on this last idea for a while before you say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.
Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is until the law figures them out and also these new laws will mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance and auditing capability.
Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather that being two steps behind them its better to see them coming and stay two steps ahead.
Todd Glassey
-----Original Message----- From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:rafi-nanog@meron.openu.ac.il] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM To: Jared Mauch Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
Hi guys,
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
-- Rafi
## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:
JM> JM> JM> Hello, JM> JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. JM> JM> I can host such a list. JM> JM> - Jared JM> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote: JM> > JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real JM> > issue though and its important to the global operations of JM> > the bigger picture Internet - JM> > [snipped]