It has been brought to the attention of our helpdesk that the newsgroup
alt.binaries.pictures.bc-series
contains child pornography. This group was not previously on our list
of undesirable groups, so I guess it's possible/likely that other providers
are carrying this group too.
Our ops people will be dropping this group in the morning. You may want
to check your news servers and take appropriate action.
--
Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> 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
Hi,
I just noticed the following in the ISSUES section of the recent posting
of the November ISOCNZ face-to-face:
> THE ISSUES:
>
> [snip!]
>
> * Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses
>
Netgate is an operating name for a service of Telecom NZ. I don't think
there is any doubt that if anybody owns Netgate, Telecom NZ does :)
I think you meant NZGATE.
NZGATE no longer exists as an operational entity - I don't think that
_ownership_ of NZGATE is a useful concept.
Portability of addresses in general is a different issue (and one that is
rather clear-cut for new address allocations); however, it would certainly
benefit from wider exposure at the face-to-face as there is still much
confusion in the user community on this issue.
I think a better heading would be:
* What can be done about the legacy of NZGATE-delegated addresses
within NZ? Ongoing portability of IP addresses.
Notice I said "can" and not "should" :)
Joe
--
Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> 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
From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:15:29 +1300
> Does this mean that it will cost $130+GST to watch the action from the Sky
> Tower? (what about the live MBONE feed? ;)
No, its free from the Sky Tower. MBONE would be nice but you really need the
infrastructure set up in advance and more or less permanent --- This of course
would be a good thing in general.
cheers
mark
---------
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Shane Cole wrote:
> Hows the route manager project coming along?
Fine - I'm just waiting on an ASN from APNIC - the route servers are
all ready to rumba, but there isn't much point in setting everybody up to
use private ASN, just to change later.
Cheers
Si
--
Simon Blake simon(a)katipo.co.nz
Katipo Communications +64 25 300 825
---------
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Interim programme below:-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1998
FACE TO FACE
"THE INTERNET - TOOL OR TOY?"
THE ISSUES:
* Pornography and Other Nasties: Are the ISPs
Liable?
* Internet Governance: The Future of the DNS
* Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses
* Ethics on the Internet
* Does the Internet Need Government?
* ThinkQuest: Announcing ISOCNZ as National
Partner for ThinkQuest International
Followed by:
* ISOCNZ Annual General Meeting
WHERE: (e)Vision House, 282 Wakefield Street,
Wellington
AND: Live Broadcast** to the Altos Bar, Sky
City, Auckland
WHEN: Friday November 20 1998
8:30-3:30 - followed by AGM in Wellington
at 4:30pm
WHO: Anyone with an interest in the Hottest
Issues on the Internet in 1998
ENTRY: Members: $80.00 + GST
Non-Members: $130 + GST
** Conference Only
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
This list is an excellent idea. Top marks to the folk who kicked it off
>Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the
>elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal is
>still available at
>http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt .
Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion
on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM?
Sounds like an opportunity for industry players to get together and share
views.
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
Peter Mott wrote today:
> Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion
> on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM?
This too is an excellent idea, is there a time set and do we need to
register or anything?
Robert Gray
Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand
bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg@clearfield.co.nz>
http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/>
Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860
---------
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
>As someone who is almost certainly more familiar with ISOCNZ than I am,
>what are your views? How do you see ISOCNZ participating or adding value
>to this issue?
My reply may be off topic, but you did ask the question, so here goes ...
Today, I would say ISOCNZ is not in a very good position to add value to
this issue or any other industry specific issue which may come along.
I say that because, whilst ISOCNZ has the best intentions in the world, it
has very view internet providers actively participating, and has a council
which addresses issues and makes decisions on things they consider important
to them at the time.
It is therefore unlikely they can represent our industry particularly well
for the time being.
The move to run a forum on issues such as censorhip, ip addressing, and
domain registration is a clear signal they want industry to participate. We
need to wake up and smell the coffee.
I think the Internet provider industry needs to be able to speak with a
single voice. We can can achieve this by:-
a) seizing the opportunity to grow ISOCNZ by joining up real quick or
b) forming our own industry association sooner rather than later
Whether NZNOG is a part of, or drives this initiative is a question for us
all, but I suggest that action is required.
Whilst the IP addressing issue can be seen in the context of engineering
stuff for industry players to sort and agree on, there are things happening
in much higher places than most of us care to live, the outcome of which may
be industry loosing some ability to manage itself.
The question of IP management is as vexed an argument as domain name
management, except the stakes are much higher. As things evolve, the
respect held for RFC's will erode, and so we will need to look for other
ways to ensure issues which concern participants of this list can be
addressed.
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
This issue is of fundamental interest to anyone concerned with the
commercial integrity and long term stability of the Internet in New Zealand.
Therefore it a matter of concern to me in the policy capacity recognised in
the sig below.
Wearing a different hat, my association with ISOCNZ, there is a need for
someone *representative of the Internet community as a whole* to take on
responsibility for ensuring that the Internet is a stable and reliable
platform for e commerce. Although ISOCNZ is not there yet, it does have
that potential (see for example, David Farrar's vision statement
http://www.dpf.ac.nz/isocnz/vision.htm; which I by and large support)
Ideologically and practically, there is strong disinterest on the part of
the Government to regulate any matter relating to the Internet. But I have
been lead to believe that the IP address structure is of sufficient concern
that, if there was any suggestion that the NZgate 'share' of the IP address
space was at risk of monopoly 'capture' by any group which was not
representative of the interests of the Internet users as a whole, the
Government might take another look.
I will be developing some of this at the Face to Face meeting on 20
November.
So my comment on the question raised by Joe's most recent post, reproduced
in full below is: who else, other than ISOCNZ? And if this is not 'value
add' what would be of greater importance? This is also not a loaded
question. :)
Of course, we are looking at an operational issue. Although, in fact, we
are looking at policy underlying an operational issue; that is governance,
actually.
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: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley@clear.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:32 PM
> To: 2Day Chief Enthusiast; Donald Neal; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 12:01:17PM +1300, 2Day Chief Enthusiast wrote:
> > This list is an excellent idea. Top marks to the folk who kicked it off
> >
> > >Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the
> > >elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal
> is
> > >still available at
> > >http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt .
> >
> > Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion
> > on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM?
> >
> > Sounds like an opportunity for industry players to get together and
> share
> > views.
>
> Although there are commercial issues surrounding the use of NZGATE numbers
> in networks today, the underlying motive for reform is the health of the
> network - specifically, the advertisement of long-prefix routes. This
> aspect
> is clearly an operational issue, rather than one of governance -- and has
> its roots in _global_ operational policy, rather than that of just NZ.
>
> As someone who is almost certainly more familiar with ISOCNZ than I am,
> what are your views? How do you see ISOCNZ participating or adding value
> to this issue?
>
> This isn't a loaded question :) I'm just interested.
>
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> 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
---------
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the
elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal is
still available at
http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt .
Joe, do you have any plans to revise your proposal in the light of
feedback you've seen since?
- Donald Neal
---------
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
