strawman for discussion in Ann Arbor

Martin Lee Schoffstall schoff at
Sat Oct 2 13:01:54 UTC 1993

this sounds pretty good

 As many of you have noticed there is an agenda item for the Ann Arbor
 Regional Techs meeting dealing with the future of the regional techs.
 The regional techs is a useful forum for coordinating the US Internet,
 it has participation by most US Internet providers including the
 regional techs, CIX members, ANS, US Federal Network operators, etc.
 Thus in some way, the name "regional-techs" does not do fully reflect 
 the membership of the regional-techs mailing list and the attendees of
 the regional-techs meetings.  Merit has done an excellent job of
 organizing the regional techs from the beginning, and running the mailing
 list and meetings as a function of the NSFNET project to date.  
 It seems to me that the regional techs will continue to exist, 
 independant of whatever occurs due to the result of the pending NSFNET
 solicitation and awards.  In that spirit I would like to put forward 
 the following outline of a strawman proposal:
 	Regional Techs relabels itself to US-NOGIN, the US 
 		Network Operators Group for InterNet.
 		(the actual name is subject to change ...)
 	US-NOGIN organized in an ad hoc manner.  This 
 		would leave it with the current constiuency and  with
 		an open  "membership" 
 	Central topics for US-NOGIN:
 		Coordination of US NIC  functionality
 			relationship to top level NIC
 		Coordination of US Routing Coordination
 			Routing Registries 
 			Technology Deployment
 			Inter Provider coordination
 			Info sharing
 		Interexchange coordination (e.g. Mae-East, etc.)
 			(network operators as customers of NSFNET NAPs)
 	Structure of US-NOGIN meetings:
 		Organizers of each meeting selected by US-NOGIN, would 
 			circulate on a meeting by meeting basis, probably
 			based on what the pressing issues at that time were.
 		Location: try to collocate with other meetings: 
 			IETF, InterOp, etc.
 	Relationship with other organizations:
 		Peer with RIPE, etc. as members of a federation which
 			constitutes the IEPG.
 		Loose (undefined, but recognized) overlapping relationships
 			with FEPG, CIX, FARNET, etc.	
 		Funding -- most costs are carried by membership and 
 			sponsors of meetings. 
 	Other operational issues?
 		trouble resolution
 		NOC to NOC handoff
 		operational standards/IETF ORAD activities
 		information sharing
 I would welcome any feedback, especially if someone would like to help 
 flesh this out.
 cheers and see you in A**2,

More information about the NANOG mailing list