Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC Course + More
Inline On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 09:51 Ryan Hamel wrote: > Martin and Tom, > > How is it a private marketing initiative exactly if the links go to > stories on NANOG's website? > This seems deliberately obtuse. It is a private marketing initiative exactly if the links go to private marketing stories on NANOG's website. Are you saying the very org that brings us together, is not allowed to spur > discussion based on newsletter content and cannot provide us with updates > and/or reminders about various things? > More deliberate and fairly unhelpful tongue in cheekery. A link to The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines was cited. That was helpful and authoritative. If the marketing arm of NANOG wishes to change the Guidelines, that will presumably take more formalities than some snarky remarks. > > Y'all have been making a mountain out of a molehill. > Last I looked, NANOG members have been making mountains out of any handy materials (or none at all) for several decades now. Folksy condescension is no more welcome or constructive than it has ever been. And FTR, Tom and Marty make most sense to me in this thread. So far. Springer > Ryan > > -- > *From:* Tom Beecher > *Sent:* Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:30:13 AM > *To:* Martin Hannigan > *Cc:* Ryan Hamel ; nanog@nanog.org > > *Subject:* Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming > ISOC Course + More > > Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care > when clicking links or opening attachments. > > What network does Nanog-news operate? >> >> Marketing email doesn’t belong on an operational list. Even if its >> NANOG marketing itself. (Ack Kentik non involvement). >> > > This is the right comment. > > The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines ( > https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ ) are fairly clear > about this. > > Posts to NANOG’s Mailing List should be focused on operational and >> technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws. >> Using the NANOG Mailing List as a source for private marketing >> initiatives, or product marketing of any kind, is prohibited. > > > Sending this type of message to nanog@ is not appropriate, by our own > rules. This issue will be raised at the next members meeting. > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:39 PM Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> >> What network does Nanog-news operate? >> >> Marketing email doesn’t belong on an operational list. Even if its >> NANOG marketing itself. (Ack Kentik non involvement). >> >> Warm regards, >> >> -M< >> >> >
Re: spam smackdown?
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Otherwise, everyone should thank the unpaid volunteers for their gracious and excellent work day after day, year after year. Or just STFU. Thank you Communications Committee. What he said. John Springer
Agenda
The times for tonight's event differ from the guidebook to the online version @ nanog nanog 6-8PM guidebook 7-11PM Which is correct?
Re: US to relinquish control of Internet
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: (As if the US has control anyway) It's all over the popular press, strange I haven't seen it here. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm Etc., etc. It's nice of the DoC to relinquish control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for controlling the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO. Was I being a pollyanna? With respect, I don't think so. John Springer -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Streaming
Chromebook Flash 2 working OK in Pacific NW. Some tiling/fuzzing. Audio volume is kinda low. On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Joe Maimon wrote: Is it just me tearing my hair out?
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
Inline. On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. Joe and On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: The community is completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. Mike I agree with Joe and Mike. If somebody wants to be a member, we should let them. They don't get to discuss orchids on the list, but they can be a member. bad analogy They didn't kick Willy Mays out of baseball or say he couldn't watch the game, because he didn't play anymore. And if he wanted to serve on a committee, they MIGHT let him. /bad analogy Can I get a memory check on some statements I seem to recall regarding membership from the last two meetings? Since we don't have transcripts. A) We needed to accept _THE IDEA OF PAID MEMBERSHIP_ because we needed to accept the bylaws as written. There was no point in talking about it. B) Paid membership is a fundamental requirement for being an incorporated body/501c3/group with bylaws. C) A major rationale for the idea is the need for immediate funds. D) Dues are projected to be 5% revenues for a while. E) This year is a fine time to discuss changing the bylaws. So while we are discussing what paid membership should be, may we not discuss whether or not we should have paid membership at all? From my perspective, we seem to be permanently accepting an insufficiently good idea along with a lot of really good ideas simply because the former steering committee thought it sounded like a good idea. And handwave we can change it later if we want. I'm sorry, that's backwards. Hence E). Full disclosure. I am a donor/paid member and will continue to be, pretty much regardless of how it all turns out. My quibble is the process of how paid membership came to be, the unconvincing rationale(s) for it and the unseemliness of excluding folks from the club and under which conditions. Disregard the unconvincing rationale bit if either of B or C above is attested to in writing by a member of, I guess it is the Board of Directors now. Although if C is the only rationale, we should IMHO consider sunsetting dues or at least building it into attendance.. Anyway, if we do have to have it, paid membership should be as open as possible. John Springer ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: ARIN Fraud Reporting Form ... Don't waste your time (more re: recovered resources)
Thanks John, On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, John Curran wrote: On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:43 PM, John Curran wrote: Resources being used by actual defunct organizations we will reclaim if reported. Folks - It occurred to me that I could have been clearer, so here I am replying to myself... When we at ARIN can readily determine that an organization is defunct and has no apparent successor, we will reclaim resources. This generally happens because someone attempts a fraudulent transfer of those resources but can also be a result of other investigations. We give a report of returned, revoked, and reclaimed number resources at each member meeting - last April's report can be found here: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Wednesday/Nobile_RSD.pdf Is the information on Leslie's slide 5 at the above link available broken down by year? It might be informative to see any trends. Thanks again, John Springer Obviously, we'll be presenting updated statistics this upcoming week in Atlanta; there's been a bit of a surge of activity in this area. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
RE: Lightly used IP addresses
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote: This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the only oddball pushing the IPv6 feature requirement. FWIW, I asked the same question. My guy was polite, but w/o info. John Springer
[Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update
Am I correct in noticing that as of __11_day of May 2010 the requirement of written application and paid membership dues has been instantiated for newnog? http://www.newnog.org/docs/consent-full.pdf I advocate that the previous attendance requirements for voting continue to be sufficient for membership (and voting rights) and that anyone presently qualified to vote under such terms be permitted to continue to qualify that way for $some_lengthy_period, if they wish. A sufficient rationale for me would be that to do otherwise would impose a monetary penalty, however modest, on those who attend meetings. Will the upcoming NANOG Community Meeting constitute a proper venue to vote on such an amendment to the bylaws? Or would the existing Board of Directors be so kind as to vote by a 2/3rds majority to do the same? :) I volunteer to serve on the Bylaws Committee. John Springer ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
