[Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

Sean Figgins sean at labrats.us
Fri Jun 11 19:16:17 UTC 2010

kris foster wrote:

> If Dorian (and Sean) are not talking about governance, then I agree. 
 > The problem on the community's plate right now is governance, and
> discussion of membership in NewNOG, Inc. needs to happen.

Um...  I was talking about membership as a way to determine who is 
interested in the operation aspects of NewNOG and those that have an 
interest in the operations of NANOG activites by the NewNOG entity.  As 
such, paid membership is required to have voting rights, and a say in 
how things are done.  This is not to say that the membership would be 
closed to outside thought, just that there is a cost to play.  Sort of 
like shareholders of any corporation.  If you own shares (which I will 
assume were purchased), then you have a voting right.

But, I am still interested in membership also having the benefits of 
being a member of a professional organization.  By being a member, not 
only do you have voting rights, but you also can show others that you 
have an interest in the activities promoted by the organization.  That 
is, in this case, operations of networks in North America.  Of course, 
this should not be limited to those residing in North America, if they wish.

>> IOPS had a per organization fee based membership and it died after
>> doing very little.  The open membership model and free access to
>> documents of IETF and NANOG up to now has worked very well IMHO and
>> should be continued if at all possible.
> I would be shocked to find anyone in the community that wants to change 
 > the openness that we currently enjoy.

That would be unthinkable.  NANOG should continue to operate the way it 
currently does.  Free information and mailing lists, charge for 
attendance to the conferences.  This way participation in the community 
is open to all, regardless of any interest in the governance of the 
corporate entity.


More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list