Hello, Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. I can host such a list. - Jared On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote:

That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real issue though and its important to the global operations of the bigger picture Internet -

besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's to hit your customers for more money since you now have serious legal issues constraining how you architect your business.

-->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal -->aspects are relevant to -->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is -->excess in their mailbox -->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking. --> -->-Jack

-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.

Rafi Sadowsky wrote:

Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?

The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic. -Jack

Rafi I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe not all at once. The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and they would create and debate the issues of network operator BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability of new materials. The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group but the conversations would be very different so I think that two lists might be necessary if they are the same group - but who knows. --- 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 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. This is the golden opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart beat. Please chew on this last idea for a while before you say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG. Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is until the law figures them out and also these new laws will mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance and auditing capability. Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather that being two steps behind them its better to see them coming and stay two steps ahead. Todd Glassey -----Original Message----- From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:rafi-nanog@meron.openu.ac.il] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM To: Jared Mauch Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) Hi guys, Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? -- Rafi ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed: JM> JM> JM> Hello, JM> JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. JM> JM> I can host such a list. JM> JM> - Jared JM> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote: JM> > JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real JM> > issue though and its important to the global operations of JM> > the bigger picture Internet - JM> > [snipped]

Actually K - what I am saying now - is exactly what I said some time ago - that NANOG of all the professional organizations, has the unique capability of being ***the*** down-on-the-metal BCP's people, otherwise maybe it makes sense to specifically LIMIT the NANOG charter so that it wont ever be expanded to address these issues and other orgs will be formed to address those needs. The question is really one of whether there is any reason to continue NANOG if it refuses to expand with the role's requirements for which it has chosen to stake its claim. Personally - I believe that NANOG will evolve from just this mailing list and its current projects to potentially be the formal keeper here in the US and North America - at least in an operational sense. Its clear that ICANN and the other ICANN-ish organizations and the PSO's and the IAB have really no idea what is going on in a collective sense. And that's because they are just idea houses. This is the place where the ideas hit practice and that's what makes NANOG so special - Dr. Susan - you and I have differed politically on NANOG and its roles and have come to "paper blows" over it and I apologize for that, but what I was trying to point out to you and the NANOG Sponsorship there at Merit, is that we are on the cusp of some real changes in how we as a culture and a race deal with each other electronically, and that if NANOG is not in the midst of it then..., nay if NANOG s not directing the charge then it will be directed by it, and I don't think that is what anyone here wants. This is not me predicting doom - but rather a change in what scopes are important to this Internet thing and its operators. Just my two cents. Todd Glassey -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Krzysztof Adamski Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:54 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) You are two days to early. K On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

Rafi I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But

not all at once.

The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and they would create and debate the issues of network operator BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability of new materials.

The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group but the conversations would be very different so I think that two lists might be necessary if they are the same group - but who knows.

---

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

maybe 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. This is the golden opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart beat. Please chew on this last idea for a while before you say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.

Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is until the law figures them out and also these new laws will mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance and auditing capability.

Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather that being two steps behind them its better to see them coming and stay two steps ahead.

Todd Glassey

-----Original Message----- From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:rafi-nanog@meron.openu.ac.il] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM To: Jared Mauch Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

Hi guys,

Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?

-- Rafi

## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:

JM> JM> JM> Hello, JM> JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. JM> JM> I can host such a list. JM> JM> - Jared JM> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote: JM> > JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real JM> > issue though and its important to the global operations of JM> > the bigger picture Internet - JM> > [snipped]