> (2) As far as I can tell, the operators in most regions are > generally well represented in, and collaborate using, the > various *NOGs.
the first derivative is generally positive. a lot of fluff, machismo, and posturing, but that seems to come with any endeavor involving us funny monkeys. > We are not a user group either. from the ops' pov, this is not exactly true. it is notable that there are almost no .*vendor user groups (ejk's xr-ug being a rare and useful exception). the ietf is one of the few formal leverage points where we can get change from the vendors. > To the extent to which there is a need for more user groups or more > effective ones, I hope that the ISOC Chapter structure is at least > making useful contributions in the area. the isoc does not attract operators. it is social/political. if we fear the roi to an operator of ietf participation is low, the roi of participation in isoc is vastly lower. but this is not a bug, it's a feature. we do not need more poly/soc folk helping us run our networks. we desperately need them doing the critically needed, and far more difficult, work of providing the socio-political front for the internet. and their talents and achievements in these areas are pretty darned good and getting better every year. randy
