SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION
Ladies and Gentlemen: I think it is fair to say the motion on the table calling for a post NSF AUP is not ready to be withdrawn nor tabled and that there is sufficient support to call for a group to work together to create a rough draft. It will be very challenging to see a diverse and informed crowd such as the cross-section of com-priv and nanog attempt to reach an 80 to 90 percent concensus on what constitutes "Acceptable Usage" of the Internet. Maybe we could begin by trying to faq an "Acceptable Usage of the Internet" FAQ. I volunteer to try to keep the FAQ on track and make the latest draft available on our server. The $1,000,000 question is who is qualified and interested and bold enough to take a first cut at a draft. Second, where should the discussion take place? com-priv, nanog, another group, or a new group? There is a blank page called http://www.silkroad.com/aup/aup.html eagerly awaiting a bold first draft by an Internet Oracle. Internet Oracle, please put your draft forward :-) The alternative is to table the motion and forget about the issue. I believe that a non-binding AUP is a necessary 'first step' that is causal to all other events congruent to the 'spam and son-of-spam' issue. It has been demonstrated that enough people on nanog and com-priv are interested in trying to come to consensus on a draft AUP. What do you say? Shall we table the motion or move forward? Tim -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Bass | #include<campfire.h> | | Principal Network Systems Engineer | for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){ | | The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | take_one_down(); | | | pass_it_around(); | | http://www.silkroad.com/ | } | | | back_to_work(); /*never reached */ | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It will be very challenging to see a diverse and informed crowd such as the cross-section of com-priv and nanog attempt to reach an 80 to 90 percent concensus on what constitutes "Acceptable Usage" of the Internet.
why do you think com-priv (US centric coverage on privatization and commercialization) and nanog (North American Network Operators) have a lock on defining an Internet AUP? Why not let the Africans, Chinese, Indians, Europeans and South Americans do it? (We'll leave out the Japanese, Australians, Asians and North Americans becasue they don't count... :)
What do you say? Shall we table the motion or move forward?
You seem to be just a tad deluded as to the relative importance of a few white males. Perhaps we should figure out how to get a real cross-section of the Internet populace first, then worry about global policy. Or better yet, focus on the policy for silkroad.com and ensure that others that you peer directly with understand your policy. Think globally, Act locally. Get your own house in order first.
Tim
--bill
Support for developing a draft Post NSF AUP seems to have diminished in the public forum. Privately, the support for an AUP is strong, but for reasons beyond my comprehension, the public debate tends to degenerate into it's lowest common denominator rapidly. It has been my belief that both NANOG and COM-PRIV would benefit greatly from defining a Post NSF AUP and I continue to agree, as many have suggested, that unless a problem is defined, it is practically impossible to solve. Mike O'Dell has told me politely that this AUP discussion in NANOG is a form of 'spam' in itself. If that is the opinion of the majority, and NANOG is not a forum for discussing a Post NSF AUP, then please consider this an apology, I was misinformed. I agree with Bill Manning's ideal for developing a comprehensive ubiquitous AUP acceptable to all races, colors, creeds, and ethic origin, but, on the other hand, it is fairly consistant with human nature that a omnipresent AUP is out of the question, considering our inability to agree, in principle, on a basic draft within a relatively small forum. It does, however, appear that defining the framework of a Post NSF AUP does not appear to enjoy the overall support of COM-PRIV and NANOG. Hence, without a show of strong support for this draft AUP, I am compelled to withdraw my motion for developing this document, unless substantial public support is generated. Also, could someone please be so kind to explain why NANOG should not be including in these AUP discussions? Thanks, Tim -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Bass | #include<campfire.h> | | Principal Network Systems Engineer | for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){ | | The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | take_one_down(); | | | pass_it_around(); | | http://www.silkroad.com/ | } | | | back_to_work(); /*never reached */ | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim, My point is eluding you... Spam is in the mouth of the taster (to blast the Bard). We do not need consensus for *me* to view the continued barage of the NANOG list with this topic as a clear example of spamming. So we have a bit of a quandry, don't we? Who and how many get to decide what is Spam and what is Treat? (an alternate brand of similar "luncheon meat" for the non-US enduring this) Any attempt to make rules must address this first and foremost. And I humbly suggest that such an effort will go onto the rocks right there. As for why not NANOG? I have no interest in pursuing this but also have on intention of dropping off NANOG until this dies down. Further, I don't see a groundswell of support by North American Network Operators (everything but the Group - and that's the point). If com-priv wishes to grind the grist of this topic until the particles are invisible, please, be my guest. Com-priv has a long history of chewing bones 'til the marrow is long-gone. Just please take the bread and mayonaise elsewhere. Cordially, -mo PS - appologies to NANOG for carboning on this. It will be my last one on this topic.
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Mike O'Dell wrote:
Tim,
My point is eluding you...
Spam is in the mouth of the taster (to blast the Bard).
We do not need consensus for *me* to view the continued barage of the NANOG list with this topic as a clear example of spamming.
Agreed absolutely. Take it to com-priv. -- Jim Dixon jdd@vbc.net VP Engineering VBCnet West Inc 408 971 2682 fax 408 971 2684
Tim Bass writes:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I think it is fair to say the motion on the table calling for a post NSF AUP is not ready to be withdrawn nor tabled and that there is sufficient support to call for a group to work together to create a rough draft.
What the hell are you talking about? This isn't a deliberative assembly. We have no "motions". Please quit pretending you are in a parliament. Perry
participants (5)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Jim Dixon -
Mike O'Dell -
Perry E. Metzger -
Tim Bass