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 -------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:32:40PM +1200, Michael Hallager said:
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.
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I imagine this would become "unless you're a really annoying piece of work, and somebody complains vociferously about your request to join, you'll get on". Note that I'm basically discussing "rights to post" here. I'm not suggesting that the archives shouldn't be public, and if there was a way to allow Joe Random Public to join readonly without a vetting process, then that's all good as well.
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.
It's been a thought that's occurred to me and others every so often during at least the last four years. We could ignore them, or we could try and fix NZNOG to be a better thing, coz at the moment it's broken, teenagers or no.
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.
So, there are lots of closed lists, so we shouldn't tidy our one?
The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at that.
The Internet isn't *meant* to be anything. It just is. I don't believe that the orginal creators of the 'net had anything to say about its democratic value. I'm prepared to stand corrected, of course. There are costs and barriers you must overcome to become a network operator. Why shouldn't there be a small barrier to you participating in a network operators list?
Lets keep it that way.
Sounds like an arguement for untrammelled access to your mailbox by spammers to me.
How can we criticise [The NZ closed club of the Internet] if we go and do the same?
I didn't realise that criticism of the "The NZ closed club of the Internet" was part of NZNOG's role. Maybe that should be put on the list info pages :-). Cheers Si
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I imagine this would become "unless you're a really annoying piece of work, and somebody complains vociferously about your request to join, you'll get on".
Of course, all the peers would be totally objective and not have any commercial affiliations etc that would influence their decisions... -- Juha Saarinen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 03:17:05PM +1200, Juha Saarinen said:
Of course, all the peers would be totally objective and not have any commercial affiliations etc that would influence their decisions...
This is not a list from which you gain competitive advantage, it's a list that you go to to get the ear of other operators. It gains value, the more operators there are on it, and that's an incentive for current members to "approve by default". Therefore, I don't imagine that the list membership are going to give a flying about commercial considerations when they approve/disprove somebody. Cheers Si
On Friday, March 28, 2003 15:02:59 +1200 Simon Blake
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I
I tend to lurk here usually in a read-only mode, I'm not an operator, but I find the list a good source of info relating to the current state of the NZ Net and wouldn't like to see it closed off. However, a default read-only mode could be good, and those who want/need to post, could be auth'd somewhere to allow posting... Maybe.
Michael and all, I agree fully with Michael here. Well done sir! Michael Hallager wrote:
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
-------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
participants (5)
-
Jeff Williams -
Juha Saarinen -
Mark Derricutt -
Michael Hallager -
Simon Blake