NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

Mon Mar 31 02:20:13 UTC 2003

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 at meron.openu.ac.il]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; nanog at 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]