[Nanog-futures] Transition update

Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksmith at adhost.com
Wed Jun 9 18:35:07 UTC 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Figgins [mailto:sean at labrats.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:09 AM
> To: Nanog Futures
> Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
> Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > but, with no data from our fearless [0] leadership, what else are we
> to
> > do, talk about NATO black helicopters?
> We could talk about natto, but what is there to say about fermented
> beans other than they are sticky and stink?
> Seriously, though, I get the feeling that the discussion around this
> whole matter is due to the lack of information regarding why THIS SC
> felt the need to depart from the status quo when it appears to others
> to
> have been working [1], and a concern that whatever come next may not
> sustainable.

These are certainly legitimate concerns and I have no doubt they will be
raised at the community meetings, given that both concerns seem to have
been posted repeatedly on -futures in various forms.

> Of course, another part of this is that NANOG is a community with no
> real concept of membership.  Some may feel that THIS SC is trying to
> hijack NANOG by incorporating and obtaining some nefarious legal
> status.

That is another key concept of the new organization that will need to be
discussed at the meeting.  What will be the new membership?  Will we
continue on with the present relationship between meeting attendance and
voting or move to a paid membership or something else?  

>   If the corporate entity fails to fulfill the membership's needs, the
> the NANOG community is left without the resources of the NANOG banner,
> and will have to try to re-create from scratch.  I mean, who wants to
> attend the North America Network Operators Community (NANOC) meetings
> when they are expecting the NANOG meetings?
Merit has presented NewNOG with the terms for transferring the various
components of the NANOG brand.  These costs have been incorporated into
the Pro Forma and will be presented at the community meeting at NANOG
49.  The particulars of those terms can be found on

> I would think that there may also me less apprehension if as part of
> incorporating, THIS SC was disbanded, and a new election was held for
> the new board of directors.  We certainly should reward all the hard
> work that it takes make this happen, but anything that THIS SC does,
> should not mean automatic entitlement to some type of corporate royal
> status.

Having worked with all of them in the early stages of the transition I
can say that they are not at all interested in "owning" this new
organization.  One of the first steps going forward will be to form a
by-laws committee from community volunteers where the particulars of
board elections, participation, etc. can be decided upon by the
community.  The present BoD, which exactly mirrors the present NANOG
Steering Committee, is keenly interested in bringing the community into
the process as quickly as possible.  I can say personally that community
involvement in all of the work that will need to be done will be
gratefully accepted by the existing transition team (which may or may
not exist going forward depending on the desires of the community).

I think I've used "the community" enough in one email, but it can't be
overemphasized; the present transition team and the BoD are not desirous
of any special status.  We all want to get NewNOG off the ground and
make sure it can continue forward.  What happens after that is going to
be up to the membership, whatever that group may be.


On behalf of the transition team

More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list