Re: Hi, we're from the government and we're here to help
On Fri, 10 March 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
I believe this to be such a common communication protocol and procedures for handling issues to be of great necessity and desireability. If 10% of the vast number of people that have expressed their opinions on these issues were each willing to put up a little money, we could solve this problem once and for all.
I used to work for a company which spent several hundred thousand dollars every year on memberships to various groups, and more money to send people to various meetings. My question always is when somone proposes forming yet another group, which groups should I drop my support so I can join your new group? If all the existing groups are broken, CERT, CIX, CNRI, FIRST, IETF, IOPS, NANOG, RIPE, etc, can any of them be fixed? Or is a new group the only option. In reality money isn't the biggest issue. I was naive once, and created a business plan for a new group. ISPs and VCs were willing to give me lots of money. The real problems were time, people and information. Companies are more than willing to join new groups, and add their logos to the membership page. But too often their engineers are told they are not allowed to contribute or acknowledge any issues or problems. All they can do is say "Here" when roll is called. I can start setting up the infrastructure tommorrow, but until something happens to permanently scare the heck out of the boards and stockholders, any new group will just be a shell.
hmm interesting perspective, I will keep this in mind.... Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 10 March 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
I believe this to be such a common communication protocol and procedures for handling issues to be of great necessity and desireability. If 10% of the vast number of people that have expressed their opinions on these issues were each willing to put up a little money, we could solve this problem once and for all.
I used to work for a company which spent several hundred thousand dollars every year on memberships to various groups, and more money to send people to various meetings. My question always is when somone proposes forming yet another group, which groups should I drop my support so I can join your new group?
If all the existing groups are broken, CERT, CIX, CNRI, FIRST, IETF, IOPS, NANOG, RIPE, etc, can any of them be fixed? Or is a new group the only option.
In reality money isn't the biggest issue. I was naive once, and created a business plan for a new group. ISPs and VCs were willing to give me lots of money. The real problems were time, people and information. Companies are more than willing to join new groups, and add their logos to the membership page. But too often their engineers are told they are not allowed to contribute or acknowledge any issues or problems. All they can do is say "Here" when roll is called.
I can start setting up the infrastructure tommorrow, but until something happens to permanently scare the heck out of the boards and stockholders, any new group will just be a shell.
-- Thank you; |--------------------------------------------| | Thinking is a learned process so is UNIX | |--------------------------------------------| Henry R. Linneweh
On 12 Mar 2000, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 10 March 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
I believe this to be such a common communication protocol and procedures for handling issues to be of great necessity and desireability. If 10% of the vast number of people that have expressed their opinions on these issues were each willing to put up a little money, we could solve this problem once and for all.
I used to work for a company which spent several hundred thousand dollars every year on memberships to various groups, and more money to send people to various meetings. My question always is when somone proposes forming yet another group, which groups should I drop my support so I can join your new group?
If all the existing groups are broken, CERT, CIX, CNRI, FIRST, IETF, IOPS, NANOG, RIPE, etc, can any of them be fixed? Or is a new group the only option.
I don't belive I ever stated that any of the existing groups were "broken" nor would I make the claim that they are. I would however question the efforts(if any) that any or all of the above organizations have made towards sastisfactory addressement of these issues. If the problem of NOC<->NOC communication and event handling had been "solved" then we would all be sitting around exchanging email about hypotheticals, would we?
In reality money isn't the biggest issue.
I would humbly suggest that you are very much mistaken. In my experience, money is the gating factor in many non-profits, and Internet trade associations are no exception.
VCs were willing to give me lots of money. The real problems were time, people and information.
Money solves at least two out of three of those issues(people and information.)
Companies are more than willing to join new groups, and add their logos to the membership page.
Which is perhaps where this group might differ a bit. There would be reasonable preconditions to joining such as "you must maintain a current contact list where a human can reach someone 24X7X365" or somesuch. It isn't as simple as paying a fee and slapping a logo on your site. This is seemingly the common view of "industry self-regulation" which is a very poor joke.
But too often their engineers are told they are not allowed to contribute or acknowledge any issues or problems. All they can do is say "Here" when roll is called.
One problem at a time.... I'd look at the value proposition: if I were to sign up with an organization that guaranteed access to member information and a defined set of processes in event handling, I could reasonably place some value on that capability.....
I can start setting up the infrastructure tommorrow, but until something happens to permanently scare the heck out of the boards and stockholders, any new group will just be a shell.
Either the industry stops playing lip-service to self-regulation or various governments will do it for them.... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
participants (3)
-
Henry R. Linneweh -
Patrick Greenwell -
Sean Donelan