RE: ISOCNZ forum - an idea

Joe: I think your idea of producing a document would be very helpful. I would like to see ISOCNZ have the role of discussing/adopting such a document (if it is suitable, of course <G>) on behalf of the Internet community. Possibly even look at extending the ISPCOP in this direction...again if that seemed a useful thing to do. The idea of a 'closed room' session was not intended for secrecy.. only to keep numbers down to those interested and knowledgeable so that the issues could be explored 'off line' from wider discussions; it was always intended to include all who wanted to contribute, but exclude at the early stage those who only wanted to learn. I think a separate day would be better and if that could report to the F2F it would be very useful indeed. Andy has suggested that as most protagonists are in Auckland that the meeting should be there. We would just need a day, place and time to be agreed and a willing host. Frank March

-----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:22 AM To: netwoman(a)one2one.co.nz; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Cc: isocnz-admin(a)isocnz.org.nz; jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Re: ISOCNZ forum - an idea

On Wed, Nov 04, 1998 at 09:24:03PM +1200, Sue Leader wrote:

...

The Face to Face organising committee has been following the NZNOG discussion on the "Who owns Netgate?" session of Face to Face with interest. (After feedback this has been re-titled "Who Inherited NZgate? Portability of IP Addresses") We believe that this subject is so important, and one that it is crucial to have ISP and other industry input into, that we wish to offer NZNOG members some alternatives to discuss.

[snip! snip!]

As I have already mentioned to Sue, I have too many other things on and can't spare a day to travel down to Wellington.

The session sounds like a fine idea however; I do share Andy's reservations about whether a closed session is appropriate though, since the real opportunity ISOCNZ has to add value to the discussions likes in the education of the user community - keeping them out of a closed room isn't going to help this much :)

I plan to have my revised draft finished (well, started :) in the next couple of days, and I will post that to the list.

In the interests of the user community, it might make sense to draft a smaller, more simple document which just explains the issues of address delegation and ownership from non-NZGATE (i.e. provider-aggregatable) blocks. If a large number of ISPs are happy to sign their names to it, it would be a good document to publicise at the ISOCNZ meeting.

The idea of this new document is, of course, to clarify matters for users, and to avoid the same provider-independence confusion that we have with the NZGATE blocks. The document could be extended in the future once we have collective agreement on how the NZGATE block delegations fit into the equation.

If people think this is worth doing, I can have a stab at a first draft -- however, anybody else who is keen to do it instead is more than welcome ;)

Joe

-- Joe Abley Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/

To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog