Jay writes:

On Mon, Jul 28, 1997 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Sarah Baker wrote:

...

Off-topic to nanog.

It appears that the members of the list feel it's a worthy topic for discussion. Since you obviously don't, and I can just feel Paul Ferguson and Randy Baker slavering at the bit, I'm going to try asking this just _one_ more time, and if I don't get an answer within, say, 48 hours, I'm going to start plonking people who yell "off-topic":

************************** Would an administrator of this list please compose and post a message defining in precise terms what topic areas are on- and off-topic for the NANOG mailing list? **************************

Pay careful attention, folks: the AUP is useless. It has not clearly forbidden _any_ of the topics I've seen people get screamed at about in the past month, with the sole exception of my bit of (you'll have to admit: provoked) ventilation a week or so ago, for which I hereby apologize publically to the parites involved. [...]

IMHO: The key problem here is people not understanding what "operational and technical" means in common parlance, I think. Is InterNIC crashing an operational problem? Yes. Is InterNIC not responding for some time an operational problem? Maybe... Until you know why they crashed, it's definitely on topic to be trying to figure out why and how, if it's affecting operations. Is it still an operational or technical problem weeks later? No. InterNIC's failures and flaws are fodder for a number of other mailing lists related to DNS policy discussions among others. Except as is operationally relevant, however, they're not appropriate for NANOG. They generally are only operationally relevant when something breaks, until it's fixed. -george william herbert gherbert@crl.com

From the web site: Mailing list charter & AUP: # Charter # # The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for # the exchange of technical information and the discussion of # specific implementation issues that require cooperation among # network service providers. In order to continue to provide a # useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, # the list will now be governed by the following guidelines: # # Acceptable Use Policy # # 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and # technical issues as described in the charter of NANOG. # 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. # 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. # 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, # and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. # 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. # 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. # # Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted # personally and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual # persists in violating the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, # Merit Network, Inc., will take action to filter the offender's # messages to the list. # # If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that # are outside the charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a # request to the entire mailing list requesting adherence to # the guidelines. If the discussion continues unabated, # the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic.

NANOG Charter: # Objectives of the Group # # The goals of NANOG are as follows: # # * Will hold three regular meetings of network service providers per year. # * Establish a forum for the exchange of technical information. # * Discuss specific implementation issues which require cooperation # and coordination among network service providers to ensure the # stability of overall service to the network users. # * Serve as a focal point for other common activities of the participants. # * Promote and coordinate interconnection of networks within # North America and to other continents.