Note that I'm basically discussing "rights to post" here. I'm not

From vague memory, nanog had two levels of subscription (read only, and read/post).

Maybe the same thing could be done here. Then if they abuse it, shift people off the read/post list more aggressively than currently is the case. They don't lose the ability to hear what's going on. Regards / Ian -----Original Message----- From: Simon Blake [mailto:simon(a)citylink.co.nz] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:03 PM To: Michael Hallager Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Moderation etc. 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.

The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at

So, there are lots of closed lists, so we shouldn't tidy our one? 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 _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog