RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

This is a posting from NANOG, a forum that I follow regularly. Most of
you know what NANOG is. In this case, it brings a point home; The IESG
and the IAB has been getting further and further away from practical
network operations. From following the NANOG discussions, neither body
is held in very much esteem by the NetOps folks. Why is that? Maybe it
is a too large dose of theoretical politicking? ... something along the
lines of RFC2826 or the IAB comments to the ICANN, which had zero
technical merit?

Folks don't generally discuss these things unless they perceive a
problem. I actually agree with Sean here, in that, the IAB et al, need
to get back to having a clue, or at least half of one. The last bunch of
emanations from the IAB were pure politics, with zero operational
content.

What is significant here is that, for the first time since I've been on
the NANOG list (some four years), the senior members are promoting a
campaign to get NANOG members to volunteer participation in the IETF.
This is so far out of normal character that I almost couldn't believe
it. But, this thread is some 10 postings long and growing.



> From: smd@clock.org [mailto:smd@clock.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 6:16 AM
> To: jhawk@bbnplanet.com; sean@donelan.com
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
> 
> | I don't know
> | if operators are finding the IETF less useful
> 
> The IETF has at least since CIDRD not really been on the best
> of terms with operators.   It is very clear that there is essentially
> no conversation happening between operators and the IPNGWG, 
> for example,
> and there are other working groups which are nearly as 
> out-of-touch with
> operators' realities.
> 
> Moreover, the IESG and the IAB have generally also been bereft
> of much operator input.
> 
> Volunteering for NOMCOMM and making sure operators have a chance
> to influence the selection of the IESG and IAB may help bring
> at least those bodies half a clue, and ideally help make the IETF
> a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet
> that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect".
> 
> The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between
> the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who
> have to explain to our investors why they are wrong.  That 
> takes work too.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html