Re: Gotta love the pollies
At 09:43 22/01/2002, Matthew Poole wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=787311
" Residential internet users who suffer email delays, network outages or slow connection speeds will gain the right of redress against service providers under a proposed law change."
This law will hold ISPs liable for delays in e-mail delivery even when the delays are associated with a remote network over which the ISP has no control. I believe that at this point we start talking of concerted information campaigns aimed at those wonderful employees of ours, to get this particular section of the law ammended or removed.
InternetNZ has made a submission to the Govt. on this topic. Members can view the submission from "What's Hot" at http://www.internetnz.net.nz/whats-hot-index.html -- Ted Grenfell Network Operations Manager, Xtra Limited Mob +64 25 435 455; DDI +64 9 359 5854; Fax +64 9 362 8007 Level 14, Xtra Central, 16 Kingston St, Private Bag 92028, Auckland This email is for the person(s) identified above, and is confidential to the sender and the person(s). No one else is authorised to use or disseminate this email or its contents. The email or its contents do not necessarily represent the views of Xtra Limited or Telecom. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Ted Grenfell wrote:
InternetNZ has made a submission to the Govt. on this topic. Members can view the submission from "What's Hot" at http://www.internetnz.net.nz/whats-hot-index.html
Of course the usual InternetNZ secrecy means that non-members can't see what's been said on their behalf until it's too late. InternetNZ was supposed to change its policy on secrecy after the last AGM so that almost everything was in the open. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton remarked:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Ted Grenfell wrote:
InternetNZ has made a submission to the Govt. on this topic. Members can view the submission from "What's Hot" at http://www.internetnz.net.nz/whats-hot-index.html
Of course the usual InternetNZ secrecy means that non-members can't see what's been said on their behalf until it's too late. InternetNZ was supposed to change its policy on secrecy after the last AGM so that almost everything was in the open.
Andy, this issue almost slipped by un-noticed by InternetNZ. It was only a last minute sighting by Rick Shera, and a very late night effort in drafting, that we got any form of submission in - literally 14 hours from time of notice to filing submission - David Farrar alluded to that in his posting earlier. If you can advise how consultation could occur within that kind of time frame, please advise how? If you think InternetNZ should have done nothing due to the tight time frame and inability therefore to consult, then say so. But please don't make spurious allegations about secrecy! Keith Davidson President InternetNZ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
If you can advise how consultation could occur within that kind of time frame, please advise how?
One would have thought the full time staff would keep an eye on such things and alert folks well ahead of time. I say sack the lot of them. Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2DAY INTERNET LIMITED It's kind of fun to do the impossible - Walt Disney -/- - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Keith Davidson wrote:
If you can advise how consultation could occur within that kind of time frame, please advise how?
Consultation was requested on the internetnz members list.
If you think InternetNZ should have done nothing due to the tight time frame and inability therefore to consult, then say so.
The complaint is that Internetnz seems to automaticly put things on the password protected part of it's website. Could you please explain why this seems to be the default (rather than the exceptional) case? -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Keith Davidson wrote:
But please don't make spurious allegations about secrecy!
No, we wouldn't want to give the impression that they're a bunch of Internet Masons, would we? -- Juha Take off every sig! - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Juha Saarinen wrote:
No, we wouldn't want to give the impression that they're a bunch of Internet Masons, would we?
We _are_! Or .. if we're not, I had to learn a complicated handshake, not to mention stand in a bucket of porridge whilst singing Blake's Jerusalem, and all for _nothing_. However, Masons, Illuminati, Choice Bretheren of Otara, whatever, nznog is not the place to discuss it. Take InternetNZ-bashing to isocnz-discuss, or Usenet, or anywhere but here, please, please, please. JSR (Who keeps the SRS under wraps? We do! We do!) -- John S Russell | Smile Operations Manager | Nod Attica/Callplus NZ | Build it. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Keith Davidson wrote:
If you can advise how consultation could occur within that kind of time frame, please advise how?
If you think InternetNZ should have done nothing due to the tight time frame and inability therefore to consult, then say so.
But please don't make spurious allegations about secrecy!
I'm simply talking about the fact that the InternetNZ position on this is only visible to members. Why can't it be public? Why can't most of InternetNZ's web site be public given the decision at the AGM to adopt a policy of openness wherever possible? What can InternetNZ have said about this issue that can't be in the public arena? - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 07:08:54PM +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Keith Davidson wrote:
If you can advise how consultation could occur within that kind of time frame, please advise how?
If you think InternetNZ should have done nothing due to the tight time frame and inability therefore to consult, then say so.
But please don't make spurious allegations about secrecy!
I'm simply talking about the fact that the InternetNZ position on this is only visible to members. Why can't it be public? Why can't most of InternetNZ's web site be public given the decision at the AGM to adopt a policy of openness wherever possible? What can InternetNZ have said about this issue that can't be in the public arena?
Please, stop the madness! NZNOG has already plunged to hideous depths of noise over signal; dragging isocnz-roasting into the mix cannot, possibly, make things any better. Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton wrote:
I'm simply talking about the fact that the InternetNZ position on this is only visible to members. Why can't it be public? Why can't most of InternetNZ's web site be public given the decision at the AGM to adopt a policy of openness wherever possible? What can InternetNZ have said about this issue that can't be in the public arena?
Oh, I see - sorry about the snapiness of the original response, I hadn't quite figured your angle. I guess the issue relating to members vs public are: 1. That there needs to be a benefit for members, otherwise we wouldn't have any. That would mean that *everything* InternetNZ does would be funded by .nz nameholders (sticks chin out for Peter Mott's sake :-) ), and the Society *would* be run by an exclusive little group. 2. A seperate debate could occur as to whether or not reading endless tomes of data are in fact a "benefit".... 3. In the past, we have seen instances of the media picking up on topics being debated by InternetNZ members and claiming that these items are InternetNZ resolutions / policies or whatever. So I guess until some things sit comfortably with InternetNZ as a whole, they sometimes tend to remain available to members only. So its really not an issue of secret squirrel stuff, more a question of timliness. But I don't think any of this is a debate that should be occurring in this forum, it probably should return to its more technical fundaments, so I will butt out. Keith Davidson - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Keith Davidson wrote:
I guess the issue relating to members vs public are:
1. That there needs to be a benefit for members, otherwise we wouldn't have any. That would mean that *everything* InternetNZ does would be funded by .nz nameholders (sticks chin out for Peter Mott's sake :-) ), and the Society *would* be run by an exclusive little group.
What is the benefit? Isn't the "Society" run by an exclusive little group already?
2. A seperate debate could occur as to whether or not reading endless tomes of data are in fact a "benefit"....
"Information is bad, especially for some people."
3. In the past, we have seen instances of the media picking up on topics being debated by InternetNZ members and claiming that these items are InternetNZ resolutions / policies or whatever. So I guess until some things sit comfortably with InternetNZ as a whole, they sometimes tend to remain available to members only.
Oh yes, blame the media for everything. Members only so much better, ya?
So its really not an issue of secret squirrel stuff, more a question of timliness. But I don't think any of this is a debate that should be occurring in this forum, it probably should return to its more technical fundaments, so I will butt out.
Not before you reveal your secret Internet handshake ;-P -- Regards, Juha C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Not before you reveal your secret Internet handshake ;-P
SYN SYN/ACK ACK - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton wrote:
I'm simply talking about the fact that the InternetNZ position on this is only visible to members. Why can't it be public? Why can't most of InternetNZ's web site be public given the decision at the AGM to adopt a policy of openness wherever possible? What can InternetNZ have said about this issue that can't be in the public arena?
Actually, the message about this submission included why it is in the members area. For a quick refresh: It appears that submissons to select committees and such like DEMAND that they are private and not made public. Once we have made an oral submission, or after the select committee has granted us leave, we can then make public our submiussion. I have bene told by those that are experts in this area that a select committee can refuse a submission if it is already been made public (read they get in a tiff and pout and throw a fit). Sorry for a dose of facts, I wont do it again. Promise. <insert InternetNZ rant here etc>. Steven Heath PS anyone in the know, ie, DPF, will correct me I am sure abotu this process. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton wrote:
I'm simply talking about the fact that the InternetNZ position on this is only visible to members. Why can't it be public? Why can't most of InternetNZ's web site be public given the decision at the AGM to adopt a policy of openness wherever possible? What can InternetNZ have said about this issue that can't be in the public arena?
Actually, the message about this submission included why it is in the members area. For a quick refresh:
It appears that submissons to select committees and such like DEMAND that they are private and not made public. Once we have made an oral submission, or after the select committee has granted us leave, we can then make public our submiussion.
I have bene told by those that are experts in this area that a select committee can refuse a submission if it is already been made public (read they get in a tiff and pout and throw a fit).
Sorry for a dose of facts, I wont do it again. Promise.
<insert InternetNZ rant here etc>.
Steven Heath PS anyone in the know, ie, DPF, will correct me I am sure abotu this process. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Ok - This message is just posted in reply to Steven - it is in no way directed at him. I know that I'm not the judge jury and executioner here, and I know that I'm guilty of this too. But lets think VERY carefully about continuing this thread. If people here were really interested in ISOCNZ then they would be also subscribed to that list. The major issue has been raised here, so if people care enough they will take it up on the ISOCNZ page. Lets try to keep the noise down in here. I'll try as well - hows that =) I'm going to see if I can follow one of ewen's ideas and get a new list made for the conference. Dean - Shhhhh there are people trying to lurk =) On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 09:53:44PM +1300, Steven Heath wrote: - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Keith Davidson wrote:
I guess the issue relating to members vs public are:
1. That there needs to be a benefit for members, otherwise we wouldn't have any. That would mean that *everything* InternetNZ does would be funded by .nz nameholders (sticks chin out for Peter Mott's sake :-) ), and the Society *would* be run by an exclusive little group.
I'm sorry, folks, about the non technical noise but I can't let this pass without some comment. InternetNZ has less than 200 ordinary members - people like you and me. (Some of you will no doubt feel highly insulted by that.) Membership subscription is $50 a year so that's less than $10,000 income a year. InternetNZ's budget for the year is many many times that amount. e.g. Salary and other costs for Executive Director and other staff Honoraria for all Council members Internal travel to InternetNZ meetings Overseas travel to ICANN etc meetings Office rental Sponsorship of conferences and other events .... You do the maths and take a guess. I'm not going to speculate as I know the answer as an ex Council member. To all intents and purposes InternetNZ is run from funds levied from nz nameholders. So this is an issue about "no taxation without repesentation" for those nameholders.
3. In the past, we have seen instances of the media picking up on topics being debated by InternetNZ members and claiming that these items are InternetNZ resolutions / policies or whatever. So I guess until some things sit comfortably with InternetNZ as a whole, they sometimes tend to remain available to members only.
InternetNZ has made a submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee on the issue in question. Seems pretty much like a decided policy to me. Michael Hallager complained about the idiots from the Consumers Institute in mail this morning but in the Herald article he cited "InternetNZ vice-president Rick Shera" was quite happy to discuss that policy. So why is this an issue for this group? Those of you who will end up having to implement for example the new "guaranteed delivery or your money back" mail systems and accounting regime that may result given the new legal status of email as 'goods' might like to know what InternetNZ is saying on your behalf. They seem to be saying the right thing so why the secrecy? - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:30:12 +1300 (NZDT), Andy Linton
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Ted Grenfell wrote:
InternetNZ has made a submission to the Govt. on this topic. Members can view the submission from "What's Hot" at http://www.internetnz.net.nz/whats-hot-index.html
Of course the usual InternetNZ secrecy means that non-members can't see what's been said on their behalf until it's too late. InternetNZ was supposed to change its policy on secrecy after the last AGM so that almost everything was in the open.
The reason the submission is password protected is because a submission to a select committee is actually the property of the select cmte once made and it is a contempt of Parliament to publish it before the cmte reports back to the House. On the wider issue of heaps of stuff being password protected - I agree it is damn annoying to put it mildly. However that will be changing in the very near future. Just needs Council to sign off on a report on 1 Feb. DPF -- david(a)farrar.com ICQ 29964527 - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (12)
-
Andy Linton -
David Robb -
Dean Pemberton -
DPF -
J S Russell -
Joe Abley -
Juha Saarinen -
Keith Davidson -
Peter Mott -
Simon Lyall -
Steven Heath -
Ted Grenfell