Fredy Kuenzler wrote: > > Pascal Gloor wrote: > >>Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> > Obeying that I think the SWINOG group should send a response to the > >> > FMG revision targeting very specifially these points with clear > >> > technical background: > > > > I second... but not it comes... shouldnt we, at least, create a SwiNOG > > association? So we would probably have a bit more 'power' and people would > > perhaps listen us more seriously.. Andre? any comments? Others comments are > > also welcome ;-) > > Association would bind a lot of resources. We need a 'Vorstand', > 'Statuten', a president, membership fees and so on. Any volounteers?
Not me ;-) > But I agree, being an association, we'd would be mentioned in political > issues regarding FMG, privacy, telecommunications and so on. First of all it is agreed that SWINOG is *not* concernet with political issues but with technical regarding to the operation of the Internet. Providing more feedback to things like this FMG revision is very hard for a SWINOG since it represents only people employed by companies with sometimes contraticding goals. SWINOG has worked very well so far without all that overhead and formalism and I don't see any reason for complicating these matters. -- Andre ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
