Mark, Elise, I read your message about NA-NOG and I think you are doing a great job in taking the bull by the horns and running with it (I think that is a badly mixed metaphor... ;-) This message contains some suggestion, and my main reason for sending it is to promote discussion in the Regional Techs group, not that I disagree with you. I realize that most of what I am talking about is political, but my concern is to be sure that the scope is broad enough so the group does not have its hands tied behind its back later on. If the charter is too narrow, some other group may claim ownership over something that is important to the NA-NOG. Mainly the reason for this is to ensure that we have a small number of groups (meetings to attend :-) with minimal duplication, with each one having an achievable and useful mission (more thrust than drag). Thanks, Claudio P.S. Boy, it is hard to write a paragraph and get it right-justified! I have the following suggestions. a) I suggest that you make an even stronger proposal at the end. Since yours is a proposal to the Reg Techs group, why not go all the way (well, farther along the way)? The group can always back off if it doesn't like it. How about proposing that the next meeting of the Reg Techs be the one when the Reg Techs becomes the NA-NOG? The attendees should be the people who care about the topics you list for the NA-NOG, and the agenda should cover those topics, as well as the usual mundane organizational topics. The time between now and then could be used to 1) contact everyone who should know about this activity, and 2) fine tune the topics that should be on the NA-NOG's plate. b) There are a lot of good reasons for the Regional Techs group to evolve into the NA-NOG, and for the NA-NOG to do the work you describe. For example 1) Reg Techs has been evolving in that direction anyway, 2) I believe there was a rough (though not overwhelmingly enthusiastic) consensus at the last Reg Techs meeting to do precisely what you are codifying, 3) the people who attend the Reg Techs would almost certainly attend the group doing the sort of work you describe (though other people would attend as well), etc. I suggest you make a stronger point of this in your message. With all the discussion about operations groups, I wouldn't want the Reg Techs group to be lost in the shuffle. c) I suggest some fine tuning the list of topics to be on the NA-NOG's plate. I think that your main points are that a) this is a technical group, b) it is composed of network service providers, and 3) it deals with issues that affect the day to day stability of the Internet. I suggest you move your current goal (1) to the bottom of the list. I suggest you broaden the scope of your goal (2) to something like: "Establish a forum for the exchange of technical information dealing with the stable operation of the Internet in North America." This way you cover any topic that is relevant to operation. I suggest you broaden your goal (3) to begin "Discuss specific implementation, deployment, and operational issues ..." Simply implementation issues seems too narrow. Again, I want to make sure your hands aren't tied. I suggest you delete the example in your goal (4) lest that tend to narrow the scope of the goal. I suggest you add a goal to "...serve as a focal point for coordination of networks in North America with networks in other continents..." Reword this, but the point is for the NA-NOG to be a group that contributes to the global coordination group. d) I suggest that the membership be self-selecting. There is no easy way to define and identify "network service providers". You have to let people decide for temselves whether this is what they are or not. You can only control the agenda and the discussions to discuorage those who aren't. If the group gets too big, you worry about it then. If you restrict membership now, you will get into far more trouble. e) Split your non-goal (5) into two. "Hold tutorials, workshops, or other educational activities." and "Become a professional society of any kind." Claudio