On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:17, Juha Saarinen wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
> a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
> network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
> exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
I quite agree. There are many networks in NZ and many operators.
Would op's of internet connected companies qualify or just op's of ISP's?
Would VISP's qualify? Alot of them don't know very much about
operating an Internet network, which is why they are "VISP's", and yet
they should still be welcome here and be able to contribute.
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they
> can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure
> they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on
> this list are probably able to do so as well.
I say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to some of Sahil's friends causing
trouble. I vote that we ignore them and continue on as per usual.
> Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
There is enough "clubs" and "secret societies" in the world without closing
NZNOG based on the whims and ideals of a few.
The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at that.
Lets keep it that way.
How can we criticise [The NZ closed club of the Internet] if we go and do
the same?
Michael Hallager
Managing Director
Comsolve Networks (NZ) LImited
Networkstuff Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
