On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:32:40PM +1200, Michael Hallager said:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:17, Juha Saarinen wrote:
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.
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.
would set a bad example, IMO.
There is enough "clubs" and "secret societies" in the world without
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
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 :-).