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

JA - in answer to your commentary not only are you wrong but you are in fact mistaken about the laws underlying what is and is not restraint of trade and what would constitute Antitrust... And as to the Super DCMA laws... in your response to that no one would do these things - My friend then the US Department of Justice will implement these laws around you and you will wind up looking this on the wrong end of an arrest warrant potentially. I am not worried about this happening - its already in place. The legislation is already in place in six US states. All it takes is the first arrest warrants to be issued. Look, you seem to think that this evolution is something that you as a System's Or Network Admin get to, or possibly can control, and that arrogance is what is justifying putting these ideas in place. Now - you may not like these ideas personally, but they are not mine alone, in fact I am just one of many messengers all saying pretty much the same thing - and whether you personally like it or not it is very likely that these things are going to come to happen. This is evidenced by the legislation in question here. In response to your statement #2 - I believe this also to be rather inaccurate. In fact the operational protocols alliance is no different that any of the participants in MFN's peering agreements or in the micro groups like OpenPeering.ORG that are around. In fact its no different than MERIT's or IANA's operating models, really - so this commentary is not only wrong its abusive since it seeks to cast a tone of "illegality" around the commentary to discredit it. In answer to the only real question you asked (your comment #2), i.e. what would happen if your employer wanted to route a protocol that others did not want to route? Simple - that protocol would stay within MFN. By the way were you formally speaking for MFN as their representative when you coined the abusive term "fantasy group"... Todd Glassey -----Original Message----- From: J.A. Terranson [mailto:measl@mfn.org] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:01 PM To: todd glassey Cc: Rafi Sadowsky; Jared Mauch; Jack Bates; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote: 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.

No. (1) There is no carrier on this planet that is going to join your fantasy group when the group is in a position to make calls on their business model. (2) The US has federal [anti-trust] laws under which this may well be illegal anyway. (3) What do you do when carrier-x decides they have a need for a protocol the group does not wish to carry? Forget this idea: it is beyond stillborn. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org