- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

FW: organisational committee for the iibf seminar, march 1999
by Frank March 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Dear Folks As I have had only one positive reply so far to my previous message asking for interest in the APEC TEL work on international Internet bandwidth pricing issues, I am forwarding this to the same circulation list as before. I will leave it to the end of this week before I set up a special mailing list and I will then forward information selectively. I have offered to fax copies of the papers I circulated previously in Word formats but I am not in a position to alter the originals for transmission as text as requested by various people. I am grateful to Brendan Black [ratfink(a)xtra.co.nz] for offering to assist with those people apparently lacking either Word or a fax machine by converting to html. Please note however, that this information, while not particularly confidential, does belong to the APEC TEL people and should not be placed into a public domain. Please note that TEL19 will take place in Japan in March 1999 and AFAIK anyone can attend APEC TEL meetings. The principal issue for the IIBF study is the cost of international Internet bandwidth outside North America and some of Europe because of the need to meet the total cost of data circuits from the 'periphery' instead of 'zero balancing' as is normal practice with international telephone calls. Frank March Specialist Advisor IT Policy Group, Ministry of Commerce, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone: +64 4 474 2908; Fax: +64 4 473 7010 > -----Original Message----- > From: valerie(a)tas.gov.sg [SMTP:valerie(a)tas.gov.sg] > Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 8:47 PM > To: apec-iibf(a)external.cisco.com > Subject: organisational committee for the iibf seminar, march 1999 > > > > > 07/12/98 15:47 > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > 07/12/98 15:47 > 07/12/98 15:47 > > Dear Colleagues, > > As was discussed at previous IIBF Task Force Meetings during TEL18 > and from the comments received thus far, there seems to be broad > agreement that information seminars should be organised along the > major milestones of the IIBF Study, to give us the opportunity to > examine the state of play for the Study, to continue dialogue among > all interested participants and to update our knowledge and > understanding of this complex topic. > > > The first of the series of seminars is scheduled for one day on the > fringes of TEL19. Japan will be in touch with me to indicate which > date will be assigned to us. I am copying Yamada-san on this e-mail. > > I think now would be a good time to start preparations for the > seminar. I am writing to solicit interest in serving on an > organisational committee to prepare the programme, format and agenda > for the seminar and to start the search for good speakers from a > wide > range of interest groups. The organisational committee will work > solely by electronic means. > > Could I ask that you send me an email by Friday, 11 December 98, > copied to all Task Force members, to indicate your interest in > serving on this committee? Once the committee is formed and to get > the ball rolling, I will circulate a draft agenda to this committee > on 15 December 98 for comments and suggestions. > > Which brings me then to the issue of sponsorship! In its comments on > the 1st draft of the TOR, the US suggested that corporate > sponsorship > be sought for the information seminars. This would enable us to use > the funds raised thus far (US$100,000 from Singapore) to pay for the > actual conduct of the Study. I would appreciate it if you could > raise > this idea with interested organisations/companies within your > economies to look for potential sponsors. I'd suggest we work > tentatively with a proposed budget of about US$20, 000? Let me know > if this sum is feasible. > > If you are not interested to serve on the organisational committee > but nonetheless have ideas for good speakers or industry experts to > participate in the seminar, I'd welcome those suggestions too. > Again, > kindly copy your suggestions to all IIBF Task Force members until > the > organisational committee is formed. > > Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you by 11 December 98 > > Regards > > Valerie > --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and
by Robert Hunt 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

Hi Brendon Yes please... do send me a copy of either the html rendition of TOR 2.1.rtf from Frank March and save me the hassle of finding a win32 login somewhere. Also have I missed the minutes of the get together at Cisco Systems? I am of course quite interested to read these. ~without prejudice~ :) I am told that RTF was meant to be an open standard but typical of a certain company's style of doing business that standard got "slightly" changed with subsequent releases of their software without publication of all of those changes so there are irritating situations when an RTF was created in recent Word and then one tries to open it in other software that (rightly) claims to support RTF. I guess if that is so then it explains a lot ... as in the end other vendors have to sniff out the changes and are usually one step behind therefore... so all credit to the StarOffice team if their suite handled an RTF with tables etc and did so impeccably) Robert Hunt --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

RE: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and Sustainable International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services"
by Technical Support 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

Brendan Black wrote: > I have been able to convert both documents to html, using > Star Office 5.0, and can mail > these to individuals or to the list if requested. The body of > the main document converted > OK, but variations in table handling in different browsers > may cause problems with the 2 > tables and the project plan at the bottom http://webpages.netlink.co.nz/~alastair/toc-2-1.html It's not exactly the most elegant code (using MS Word's "Save As HTML" - urg) and my method of printing the diagram and table then scanning them into a file is surely the beginning of a great leap backwards, but it's enough that people can read the document. Cheers Alastair Galloway mailto: ag(a)a.co.nz --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and Sustainable International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services"
by Frank March 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

Reluctantly and with apologies to those receiving this who do not need it, want it, or are receiving it twice, I copy below a note I sent to Andy Linton. I am doing this because I now have similar notes from Dean Pemberton and Craig Anderson and I can see no point this correspondence continuing. In addition to the points I made to Andy, the note was not sent by me as a member of the ISOCNZ Council, but with the appended sig. I emphasise that I will fax it to anyone interested who, for whatever reason, cannot read the original. Original reply as sent to Andy (actually, slightly edited): I am replying directly, personally in order to prevent unnecessary email pollution.. The TOR from APEC Telecommunications WG is not my document, it belongs to an international group who choose to work in their own fashion. The document is in a complex format which is not capable of being translated into text. The web would be a good alternative but I am not in a position to place material on the Web that does not belong to me. I am not interested (sorry Andy) in pursuing arguments about electronic formats.. I have a Microsoft formatted document which belongs to someone else..I can print it and fax it for limited distribution. IP issues and practicalities preclude any other course of action at this stage. Frank March Specialist Advisor IT Policy Group, Ministry of Commerce, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone: +64 4 474 2908; Fax: +64 4 473 7010 > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Linton [SMTP:asjl(a)netlink.net.nz] > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 9:51 PM > To: Frank March > Cc: 'i > Subject: Re: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of > "Compatible and Sustainable International Charging Arrangements for > Internet Services" > > Frank March wrote: > > > > I am distributing this in the first instance to members of ISOCNZ > Council > > and to the NZNOG group. Apologies to those who get it twice. I also > > apologise to those who cannot read the Word format document. Anyone > stuck, > > please email me and I will make some other arrangement; fax if > necessary. > > > > Frank, > > I raised this issue at the AGM last month and I refered to the Society's > Articles of Associaton. Section 8 at > http://www.isocnz.org.nz/articles.htm says: > > 8 COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS > > Every communication with a Member may be by electronic message in > clear ASCII text, directed to the email address of the Member as > recorded in the records of the Society, or where the Member has > no such address by such other means as may be defined by the > Bye-laws of the Society. Such messages will be acceptable for the > conduct of the business of the Society unless the Chairperson > shall advise that any specific business or meeting shall be > conducted at a meeting at which Members are required to be > physically present. > > Given the attention being given to the activities of Microsoft in the US > Courts, it seems to me that even indirect support should not be given to > the activities of an organisation which attempts to subvert the open > nature of the Internet that many of us have striven for over the years. > > I may be cutting my nose off to spite my face here but until ISOCNZ > changes its rules, then I will raise this issue every time I see this > happen on an ISOCNZ list. > > NZNOG of course has no such rules but I'd hope that they'd take a > similar stance on open communication. > > andy --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and Sus tainable International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services"
by Frank March 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

I am distributing this in the first instance to members of ISOCNZ Council and to the NZNOG group. Apologies to those who get it twice. I also apologise to those who cannot read the Word format document. Anyone stuck, please email me and I will make some other arrangement; fax if necessary. ***If you want to continue to receive relevant material PLEASE EMAIL ME DIRECTLY. If you do not, take no further action, I will not trouble you again.***** Ideally, this process should have its own email list and, if there is interest, I will ensure one is established. As I explained some time ago to at least some of you; and I touched on briefly in my slot at the 98 F2F, the APEC Telecommunications Working Group (TEL) has moved quite rapidly to look at the issue of international charging for Internet services. Attached is a cover letter addressed to members of TEL and the current Terms of Reference for the study, both in Word 7 format (please note, before anyone bytes my head of, this is how I received it). I am asking ISOCNZ to provide a point of contact for consultation between the NZ Government representatives on TEL and the "industry" (whatever that means in this context). Please note that, as far as I am aware, anyone may become a member of TEL and attend its meetings so if folk have a problem with this consultation process they can bypass it. I consider a much greater danger to be that interested parties will not hear of the study through these two contact groups so I would appreciate comments on who should receive this information. Please pass it on to colleagues or friends. I am reluctant to blast it out over isocnz-l simply to avoid unnecessary pollution of the email waves. Thanks for your help Frank March Specialist Advisor IT Policy Group, Ministry of Commerce, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone: +64 4 474 2908; Fax: +64 4 473 7010 <<TOR 2.1.rtf>> <<tor2.1covernote.doc>>

5 5

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

Hi. Can someone post some details on the outcome of Friday's meeting for those who could not attend or had to leave early. Thanks, -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

>Can someone post some details on the outcome of Friday's meeting for >those who could not attend or had to leave early. The lunch provided by CISCO was absolutely *fantastic* !! Roger was seen taking orders for lots of kit as a result :-) regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by Chris Wedgwood 26 Nov '98

26 Nov '98

On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 02:20:54PM +1300, Don Stokes wrote: > apnic-011 already says that, at least for addresses allocated in > the NZGate timeframe. I haven't found any other APNIC document > (expired or not) that states APNIC policy toward address ownership. Assuming we all follow this then -- do we have allow people or users with small (eg. /26) networks to take them with them should they decide to move? Allowing this _without_ any constraints would make fragmentation horrific. > Do you have a clause in your service contracts that states > explicitly what the position is regarding IP numbers you assign to > clients? Most ISPs do (and all should). No idea... I speak only for myself, not for any company. I don't look at the legal bits where possible, thats what marketroids and legal people are for. > Does it matter? Yes. If someone is allocated address space for which they are not specifically told whether or not it should be considered portable or not, and therefore they wish to take the network with them when they move providers, we could get considerable fragmentation when many people with small networks do this. > It does if anyone is allocating address space in new blocks without > explicitly stating the "ownership" of addresses, but for the old > addresses it just means that at worst the routing table space taken > up by old addresses doesn't get any smaller. I don't follow; surely we have a situation where providers in the past have carved up a say /20 for clients -- and when a client moves this /20 might then need to become sixeteen /24 routes (or a /21, a /22, a /23 and two /24 or whatever). > It also matters if an ISP wants to move a bunch old /24 prefixes > over to an upstream provider that refuses to deal with them -- so > far the ones that have made noises about refusing small netblocks > this have backed away from that position. Eventfully as enough /24 are freed up, we will be able to coalesce adjacent ones into large networks. > What can be done as a technical group is to develop a consensus on > how to retire old /24 prefixes and aggregate them into larger > blocks, either through the APNIC's return policy (apnic-072), or > through some local arrangement, without grossly impacting on either > ISP or customer operations. This seems like a good idea. > I think the first step in this is to get the "ownership" issues > aired (I don't think it will be "solved") at the ISOCNZ conference > tomorrow; at least then hopefully we'll have some idea of what > various positions are. I don't think the ex-NZGate issue can be > really proceeded on without that. Can someone who attends this meeting then please provide some feedback? -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 9

Re: Anyone got a crowbar?
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

>> A rhetorical question: why does cisco rack mount equipment need a >> crowbar to install? I recall a similar problem years ago when in broadcast engineering environment. Except in those days the gear worked perfectly on the floor, but when bolted into that precision peice of engineering known as a rack, it started to play up. If you ever did your job really well and tied back the cables neatly so others could tell you were a professional, it was sure to stop. Just be thankful that even after your crowbar adjustment, your router still goes! regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Anyone got a crowbar?
by Michael Newbery 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

A rhetorical question: why does cisco rack mount equipment need a crowbar to install? Would it really be SO difficult to make the cases 2mm narrower so that when the mounting brackets are fitted they slide into the rack rather than having to be forced? Mild steel is a wonderful engineering material characterised by its ability to gracefully deform under stress, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy watching it do so. Mumble. -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 4