Just meant it as a parallel operational example. Both situations, while legally distinct, present the same operational issues. Purposely breaking things - and then being required to keep the breakage secret - is going to mess up a whole lot of things. (How does Chinese operators handle this?) Additionally the snooping is an issue, though I can't imagine anyone depends on an IX for maintaining secrecy at a contract level :/ Today's realities. /kc On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:03:00AM -0600, Mike Hammett said:

I'm not sure Cogent is on any IXes?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ken Chase" <math@sizone.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:56:23 AM Subject: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

And when you go to figure out why that IP wont ping through Cogent on your exchange, and start troubleshooting but can't get any answers as to why things are bust...

[ Clearly now an operational issue for NANOG. ]

Purposely breaking routing and not being able to talk about why is going to set many orgs at odds with their basic operational charters. I expect that a paid service will work when it's provided, including help debugging their end.

This is slightly different from a service provider, ostensibly you can go elsewhere to get service - but when you are a member of a nonprofit *IX (as we are with TorIX), things get a lot more complex.

I imagine contract lawyers are going to be all over this.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/linx_snoopers_charger_gagging_order...

(their typo in the url)

/kc -- Ken Chase - math@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada

On Feb 17, 2017, at 16:46, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:

There is one problem: The article is factually incorrect on multiple points.

It would be interesting to know what points those are, it reads mostly accurately to me.

The proposed constitutional changes are in the public domain.

The main problem, though this point may have gotten lost in the very long discussion on the LINX members list, is that the reasoning and motivation for the changes was not made clear. Even when explanatory materials were belatedly provided, they weren’t especially clear. So instead of saying, "we have this new spying law in the UK and we need to rejigg the decision-making at LINX so we will be ready in case we are required to do something that must be kept secret" what was proposed to the membership was, "we have embarked on this long governance journey and this is what we have come up with as the best way to run LINX". Those are two very different propositions, especially for busy people who don’t have time to read in detail and understand all the implications. All that I suggested is that the members be properly informed so that they can make this choice with their eyes open. It is important to have this discussion in the open, and explicitly mark the transition where Internet Exchange Points re-organise themselves to accommodate spying laws and gag orders. William Waites Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Informatics Forum 5.38, 10 Crichton St. Edinburgh, EH8 9AB, Scotland The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

It's a pretty shocking development. It's one thing to nobble a single network under the IP Act to interfere with equipment but to use a neutral exchange to nobble shared infrastructure used across US and UK and ... is a completely different can of worms. I don't exercise a vote anymore at LINX but I do hope members will pause and consider this very carefully indeed. Christian

Brandon Butterworth <mailto:brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> 17 February 2017 at 17:38 On Fri Feb 17, 2017 at 05:19:32PM +0000, William Waites wrote:

...

So instead of saying, "we have this new spying law in the UK and we need to rejigg the decision-making at LINX so we will be ready in case we are required to do something that must be kept secret"

Yes but "hey government, swivel on this" isn't going to be an effective secret weapon, they'll neutralise it before you use it

...

what was proposed to the membership was, "we have embarked on this long governance journey and this is what we have come up with as the best way to run LINX". Those are two very different propositions

A big winking eye emoji was needed

brandon William Waites <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> 17 February 2017 at 17:19

...

On Feb 17, 2017, at 16:46, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:

There is one problem: The article is factually incorrect on multiple points.

It would be interesting to know what points those are, it reads mostly accurately to me.

...

The proposed constitutional changes are in the public domain.

The main problem, though this point may have gotten lost in the very long discussion on the LINX members list, is that the reasoning and motivation for the changes was not made clear. Even when explanatory materials were belatedly provided, they weren’t especially clear.

So instead of saying, "we have this new spying law in the UK and we need to rejigg the decision-making at LINX so we will be ready in case we are required to do something that must be kept secret" what was proposed to the membership was, "we have embarked on this long governance journey and this is what we have come up with as the best way to run LINX". Those are two very different propositions, especially for busy people who don’t have time to read in detail and understand all the implications.

All that I suggested is that the members be properly informed so that they can make this choice with their eyes open. It is important to have this discussion in the open, and explicitly mark the transition where Internet Exchange Points re-organise themselves to accommodate spying laws and gag orders.

William Waites Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Informatics Forum 5.38, 10 Crichton St. Edinburgh, EH8 9AB, Scotland

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net -------------------------