^ Top

SC Minutes 2005

August 11, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Betty Burke
  • Christopher Morrow
  • Jared Mauch
  • Joe Abley
  • Philip Smith
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman
  • William B. Norton

Scheduled business, taken from the NANOG charter, included the following:

  1. Election of Steering Committee chair was discussed. Chris Morrow and Jared Mauch and Randy Bush were suggested to serve as chair. Randy Bush was chosen as chair. Betty Burke was chosen to serve as pro tem spokesperson for announcements.
  2. Program Committee membership and selection was discussed. Steve Feldman reported the October meeting is in process, but it is too early to report on presentations or agenda. Steve also reported the Program Committee is in place and ready to review when the Call for Presentations is completed. The group then discussed selection and membership of the next Program Committee. There is agreement that there is no strong sentiment for major change being required.

    Steve Feldman would like any PC changes in place by November 05. The SC agreed the SC should meet with PC during the October meeting. Dual membership on the SC and PC was discussed. Philip Smith is active in APRICOT and noted that when the Apricot PC is discussed, it is recommended that dual members abstain from voting on this issue. There are three SC/PC members in this position, Joe Abley, Bill Norton and Chris Morrow. Steve reported his only concern is that when SC members are also on the PC, they must honor his role as chair of the PC.

    The Charter says that one non-voting SC member will be on the PC, but the Charter assumed there would be no overlap. Jared Mauch believes there is sufficient overlap for now that we don't need to appoint anyone to that role at this point. The committee is in general agreement with this position. Further, the committee consensus on this position indicates that overlap is ok as long as one person does not chair more than one committee.

    The SC formally ratified the present program committee.

  3. NANOG mailing list administrator selection was discussed. The SC agreed they should check with existing mail list admins, to be sure current membership wants to stay. Jared Mauch will talk to the mail list admin team and ascertain needs and pressure points. The SC should also meet with the mail list admin team in LA. Jared Mauch moved to ratify the existing mail list admin committee, which was unanimously supported.

    NANOG mailing list policy (as recently asked by the list admins) was discussed. Randy Bush recused himself from the discussion. Steve Feldman reported that guidelines were developed by mail list admins based on their perception of the needs of the community in February 05. Steve Feldman feels this is a hot-button issue with many valid viewpoints. Joe Abley suggests that there be an appeal process to the SC when a sanction is being recommended/imposed by the mail list admins. Joe Abley further suggests SC members should be treated as normal NANOG community members. Betty Burke recommended there be regular communication between the Mail list administrators and the SC. Bill Norton indicated the mail list admin members have asked how long their term is to be. Betty Burke reported there is no term in the charter, and they serve as appointed by the SC.

    The SC formally ratified the current mailing list admin team.

  4. Liaison with other organizations was discussed, with special attention to possible meeting schedule conflicts. The SC agreed there are no issues currently known. The meeting conflict issue if of big concern. Considering who is on PC and the SC, it was agreed, we have a good handle on issue. Steve Feldman is willing to talk to potential hosts about his experiences as a host of previous meetings.

New business:

  1. October and February meetings were discussed. Steve reported for the October meeting, the only change in structure is to move the BOFs to Monday afternoon, hence Tuesday will run longer. The PC also believes there may be some 'lightning' last-minute talks. Betty Burke reports there are currently no logistical issues for the October meeting. Betty also reports we have no site, host, or schedule for February meeting at this time. Steve would like to do multi-track, but reports the hotel logistics prevent this for October, maybe next time, February.
  2. The SC mailing list was discussed. All agreed for now that two lists are needed: one for the SC only and one to which anyone may post. Both should be real mailing lists, not just aliases. Archives to be private with only SC access.

The next call will take place in about one week.

Betty Burke, Randy Bush

August 21, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Joe Abley (notetaker)
  • Philip Smith
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman

There was no quorum; the charter says we need four people to make decisions, and Steve was present ex-officio.

  1. There was discussion about the general issue of the programme committee's self-determinism. The SC's role should be to take responsibility for the selection of the PC, but without micro- managing the PC's activities. A selection process which involves both the PC and the SC would allow the SC to take advantage of the PC's opinions and experience without abdicating its responsibilities.
  2. The question of facilitating a global netops meeting coordination mailing list was discussed. NSRC/UO/NSF are already working on a central calendar (http://ws.edu.isoc.org/) and mailing list ([email protected]). There was general agreement amongst those present that NANOG should support this effort rather than trying to reinvent any wheels.
  3. The timeline for the PC selection process has not yet been discussed between Joe and Steve. Proposal to be fleshed out by e-mail in time for the next call.
  4. Steve presented a status report on behalf of the Programme Committee on the October meeting.
  5. The issue of subscription to the SC mailing lists with addresses which give broad rights to mailing list content to others was discussed.
  6. A draft steering committee meeting schedule for Los Angeles was discussed. It was proposed that the SC hold several meetings: a public meeting; a meeting with the programme committee; a meeting with the mailing list administrator team; and an internal SC meeting.
  7. Opportunities for promoting or facilitating new netops forums such as blogs and wikis were discussed. Merit have done some work on a slashdot-analogue called "slashnog". Paul Fergusson publishes a blog with relevant content. It was suggested that the community should be consulted via nanog-futures to help determine the appropriate way forward. It was considered amongst those present that promoting existing projects was perhaps a more effective approach than inventing new ones, in the case where suitable efforts are already underway.

September 1, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Betty Burke
  • Christopher Morrow
  • Jared Mauch
  • Joe Abley
  • Philip Smith
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman
  • William B. Norton


  1. Steve and Joe proposed a timeline for the PC selection process:
    • Friday 9/2: send call for nominations
    • Friday 9/23: nomination deadline
    • Week of 9/26: announce candidates, open comment period
    • Week of 10/3: selection
    • Monday 10/10: announce slate of new members

    Steve and Joe also proposed a draft call for volunteers, to be sent to the NANOG and NANOG-ANNOUNCE mailing lists. This was to be reviewed by the SC ready to send out on 2 September, per the schedule above.

    For this first PC selection process, current members of the PC will also nominate themselves, and the selection process will choose a new PC from all available candidates, ensuring that at least eight existing PC members are retained, as per the charter. The precise selection mechanism has yet to be determined.

  2. Jared reported back on his conversations with existing members of the mailing list administration team. The NANOG list AUP needs review, and the process for mailing list administration needs to be documented. Jared will ask the mailing list committee to begin the process of documenting the current policies and process followed by the admin team, which will be done in co-operation with the steering committee.

    It was noted that the steering committee do not currently know the policies and process being applied by the mailing list committee.

    It was further noted that the mailing list administration team have to date banned one person from the mailing list.

    Per the NANOG charter section 7.1.2, members of the list administration team may not also be a member of the programme committee. Susan Harris currently participates in both; the steering committee requests that she excuse herself from the mailing list admin team, since the programme committee has the greater need for her experience and expertise.

  3. Betty reported that the October meeting is on-track with hotel arrangements and logistics. The February meeting does not yet have a confirmed host, although there are a few possibilities. Betty requested the assistance of an SC member to help recruit meeting hosts. Joe volunteered.

    Steve reported that the agenda for October is currently a little thin.

  4. The steering committee agreed that certain mail accounts should not be used to subscribe to steering committee mailing lists. The mail accounts concerned were those provided by Google/gmail and from others where third parties, other than employers, get broad rights to the content. The motivation for this was that the steering committee has a responsibility to keep some of their discussions private, e.g. those relating to specific individuals.
  5. Timing for a series of steering committee meetings in Los Angeles was agreed:
    • general open SC meeting (Sunday, two hours before reception)
    • meet with PC (Monday lunch)
    • meet with ml (Tuesday breakfast)
    • SC meeting (Wednesday breakfast)
  6. Joe, Philip and Randy have liaised with NSRC/UO/NSF on their workshop calendar project, . NANOG meeting scheduling will be co-ordinated with that calendar and the corresponding mailing list with the aim of minimising scheduling conflicts with other related meetings. Betty offered to link to the NSRC/UO/NSF calendar from the NANOG web site.
  7. The NANOG-FUTURES list had been deactivated by Merit some time ago; in earlier discussions the SC had presumed that it was still functional, and had proposed that it continue to be used for discussions about NANOG policies and organisation. Merit reactivated the list at the SC's request.

    The SC would prefer all NANOG lists to require confirmation for subscription and unsubscription, and Merit sysadmin staff will be asked to confirm whether there are any technical issues with making this happen.

  8. The question was raised as to whether blog-style/newsbite posts to NANOG were on-topic, or whether it would be better to keep them off the mailing list and on a more conventional blog, to which people could subscribe using RSS, etc. There has been some opinion on this topic voiced on the NANOG list recently. Joe and Randy are trying to start a discussion on this on the nanog-futures list.
  9. There is the ability to provide real-time AV of the October meeting on monitors outside the meeting room. The SC agreed that this was worth trying as an experiment, so long as the experiment did not impose unreasonable demands on Merit and host staff.

September 15, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Betty Burke
  • Christopher Morrow
  • Jared Mauch
  • Philip Smith
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman (ex officio)
  • William B. Norton


  1. PC report
    • Status of Call for Volunteers: We've gotten a few nominations, maybe a half dozen, plus bios from a half dozen of the current PC. Think we'll have a pretty good slate. We have a week until close of nominations.

      No one has come up with a really good idea of how to make the decisions. Also have the problem of how to balance SC & PC. Bill suggests that the SC needs to be in the driver's seat. We should choose the 16 best and then make sure it meets the new/old balance criteria of the charter. Diversity in PC membership is important. Steve will put out a straw proposal on how to decide. And a reminder call will be done on Monday.

    • Status of October Meeting:

      Steve says that so far the program is up to eleven accepted talks, four conditionally accepted, five rejected. Three tutorials not including IPv6. Three BoFs will be Monday after lunch. Peering and security BoFs will not overlap. Monday evening will be free. So it looks as if we can fill the time pretty well with quality content.

      The Social, transportation, etc. are being arranged. Audio and video on the break room are being arranged. The streaming archive will be available with a four hour lag.

      The ML discussion should be part of SC open meeting, not a separate BoF.

      There will be visualization of NANOG meeting net traffic available. If it does not identify users, it should not be a privacy problem.

      Registration is just starting. 150 registered so far, which is about normal. Some folk have problems with the fact that one is immediately charged for registration. Can't solve this time, but working on solving it for February.

      Good sponsor support for snacks, meals, etc.

  2. Plans for Winter Meeting:

    It looks as if we have someone willing to host. Now negotiating time and place. Two weeks late in Feb are open. First week of Feb looked great except conflicts with I2.

    Someone is negotiating to host February 2007, which would be a big step in getting scheduling well in advance.

    • Open Issues Folk may Have:

      No badges of rank for PC or SC members. Maybe colored badges.

      SC open meeting Sunday evening:

      We will have about two hours. The meeting should be broadcast. There should be a way for folk not at the meeting to send in comments and questions. Openness is a goal. Agenda for putting on the web site
      - SC Progress/Status Report
      - Open microphone
      - Steve - PC report
      - Open microphone
      - Betty - finances
      - Open microphone
      - Mailing List issues
      . SC process regarding ML committee, i.e. terms, selection, ...
      as this is not covered well in charter.
      . ML policy and process
      . ML appeal process
      . other open issues
      - Open microphone
      Randy to put out call for agenda items for SC meeting

      Bill will draft the SC progress report

  3. ML report
    • SC Process Regarding ML Committee, i.e. terms, selection, ... as this is not covered well in charter.

      Steve thinks the ML stuff was done less formally on purpose. The problem is that when an ML member burns out, they may create a perception of damage with the members. Having terms, selection, ... will help to depersonalize the whole thing.

      Agreed that we need to do something on ML committee selection process. Philip will try to draft an ML selection process based on the PC selection process in the charter. We will refine the proposal and then discuss it with the membership in LA and on list with the goal of having it in place in the months after LA.

    • ML policy and process:

      Jared will work with ML chair and ML committee to come up with a proposal for processes ML uses to deal with the list.

    • ML appeal process:

      A process whereby a member may appeal an ML decision to the SC should be part of the ML process work Jared will do with the ML committee.

September 29, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Christopher Morrow
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman (ex officio)
  • William B. Norton


  • Betty Burke
  • Philip Smith
  • Jared Mauch


  1. PC report: Steve handled the PC report, but we had so many people absent. But we had a quorum and the PC selection process schedule meant that we had to decide on the process at the meeting, so could not wait for two weeks.

    Joe raised the question of whether those present on the call who were also serving on the PC, and were nominated for the next PC, should properly recuse themselves from the discussion. It was agreed that it was proper for those overlap SC/PC members to participate in the discussion of the mechanism for election of the next PC, since that discussion does not involve decisions about individual candidates.

    • Status of Call for Volunteers: The list of PC volunteers was posted. There were 16-18 new volunteers, and 12 of the current PC want to renew. So we had 30 candidates from which we needed to choose 16.

      The public comment period had started and we had received input from a few people. We planed to start the decision process on Monday 2005.10.03.

      Bill wondered how well known the candidates are? We would have a problem judging if we do not know them. Steve noted that the SC is diverse, so one of us is likely to know any candidate. But we were not sure if the coverage was total. It was thought that there were enough quality folk in the pool, so if we missed someone who was not known, we still would have a good PC.

      Steve noted that we have contact details for all the candidates, and so it is possible to contact individual candidates in the event that people need more information about them.

    • Plan for selection

      Steve wanted to vet the new candidates to come up with a short list. He envisioned each picking their top eight, or maybe alternatively a ranking.

      Randy asked why we would treat the two pools separately, the goal being to get the best 16 under the retention constraint. Steve replied that the issues was the overlapping current members needed to be excluded from discussions of the current PC re-volunteers.

      Joe suggested that input and rankings be drawn from all PC, and that only a subset of the SC, {SC-{SC^PC}}, discuss new volunteers.

      Randy should set up a mailing list of SC members not on PC to do the hard part of the decision. Current PC members should be strongly encouraged to send their rankings of current and new volunteers to this small list.

      There will be a SC con call on Monday 2005.10.10, usual time, 23:00 gmt, unless Philip has a serious issue.

      It was discussed if four people would be too small a group to make the decision. But we should not have PC members on the committee deciding about current PC members. And we can not drag people in from outside as that would be SC members appointing new SC members, even pro tempore, which would be bad precedent. So four it will be.

      Bill was not comfortable with only four people selecting the PC. He was asked for suggestions. He suggested that the three Overlap folk would un-volunteer from the PC. The problem is that losing all three would be very hard on the PC.

      The problem was that that there are 12 volunteers from the current PC, and if three more un-volunteer, we are left with choosing at least eight of nine, which is not good.

      It was suggested that the dual-members might help decide only on the new volunteers.

      Three alternatives:

      1. Subgroup {SC-{SC^PC}} of four to make total decision
      2. Overlappers resign from PC and all SC makes decision
      3. Subgroup makes decision on who to keep from existing PC and then overlappers join full-SC call to make decision on who to choose from the pool of new volunteers.

      The decision was to take the third alternative.

      A PC+SC combined call will be Friday 2005.10.07, 19:00 gmt, so the SC can get input from, and exchange views with, the current PC.

    • Status of October Meeting:

      Steve said it was on track. The program was on schedule. There will be a second round PC conference call Monday evening to rate post-deadline and revised talks. Then they will be able to put the program together.

    • Someone suggested that there should be an appeals procedure on the PC selection process. But, as the SC is the decision making body, to whom would the appeal go?
    • Plans for Winter Meeting: Nothing new.
  2. An SC Open Meeting draft presentation was reviewed
  3. ML report:

    Jared has home and work issues and maybe can not cover ML at this time. Joe will write to Jared to ask to take it over. The goal is to have firm and documented status and proposals for LA.

  4. Charter Ammendment Needs/Possibilities:

    The charter does have an ammendment process. It talks of the annual election. This year is odd because the annual election has already taken place. So it would be difficult and possibly a bit hasty to try to ammend it this year.

    The ML appointment/policy issues can be decided openly and put in place by the SC this year, and let the charter formalities be done more calmly and prudently over the next year.

    The joint PC/SC membership issue will need to be resolved.

    Removing Steve's name from the charter would be a good thing.

  5. BLOG, wiki, SlashNOG:


  6. Guide for Prospective Meeting Hosts:


October 10, 2005, Conference Call Minutes

SubSC (SC members who are not also PC members) call attended by:

  • Randy Bush
  • Betty Burke
  • Philip Smith
  • Jared Mauch

SubSC met for ten minutes and chose from the existing PC per charter:

  1. Bill Woodcock
  2. Christopher Morrow
  3. David O'Leary
  4. Henry (Hank) Kilmer
  5. Joe Abley
  6. Kevin Epperson
  7. Steve Feldman
  8. Ted Seely

Randy then sent out a message to the list to have the rest of the SC to join. It took about 40 minutes to convene the full SC. The rest of the SC joined the call:

  • Christopher Morrow
  • Steve Feldman
  • William B. Norton

Randy reviewed who the SubSC had chosen from the existing PC.

A general discussion of new volunteers ensued. It was very difficult to decide. There was much effort to get a balance of talents, industry, etc. The lack of candidates from large enterprise and content providers was notable. After much discussion, the SC as a whole converged on:

  1. Daniel Golding
  2. Jennifer Rexford
  3. Joel Jaeggli
  4. Josh Snowhorn
  5. Pete Templin
  6. Ren Provo
  7. Todd Underwood
  8. Vish Yelsangikar

Steve will inform individuals and then compose a general announcement over his and Randy's signature.

The SC strongly encourages the candidates and current PC members not selected to continue to be involved in the process. Their work, willingness, and interest has been and is greatly appreciated.

November 3, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Christopher Morrow
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman (ex officio)
  • William B. Norton
  • Philip Smith
  • Jared Mauch

On vacation:

  • Betty Burke


  1. NANOG 35 Review
    • Attendance: No real numbers have been received. Rumors are over 530 attendees. Remote participation numbers were also measured and will be reported.
    • Finance: There was no report on finance as Betty was on vacation!
    • Program:

      Hallway comments to PC were all good. Generally, the folk liked the format and content.

      There was some discussion of survey forms, whether we actually use them and what we have learned from them. The data are posted publicly. Perhaps we should review survey results in the next open SC community meeting?

      The open SC community meeting was felt to have gone very well. People seemed constructive and comments were extremely useful. We need to encourage more folk to speak.

      A few people, led by Ren Provo, are working on mini-BoFs for next meeting. Ren and crew should discuss and plan this on the nanog-futures list. They should figure out what is needed and the PC and logistics folk will try to provide the needed facilities.

  2. NANOG36
    • Logistics Nothing is known other than we will be in Dallas February 12-14, 2006. There was some discussion of going to Monday through Wednesday and the hotel arrangements necessary to support this change.
    • Terminal Room: Do we need a terminal room? Would three PCs in the corridor be sufficient? This should be discussed on nanog-futures. Maybe it should become a discussion room, with space for a few informal or formal break-out groups.
    • Program:

      Public discussion of whether we should move to Monday through Wednesdays has started. The PC is leaning toward it. It was thought that a Sunday newbie orientation should be tried.

      If meeting goes Mon-Wed, when would we hold the open SC community meeting?

      There was some discussion if BoFs could be put opposite tutorials.

      The PC will be drafting a call for presentations.

  3. Mailing List
    • Process for replacing Steve Gibbard: Randy had edited Chris Malayter's draft call for volunteers. It was reviewed, tweaked a bit more, and Randy was told to send it out ASAP so we could get a decent two week window before folk started Thanksgiving.
    • Publishing Statistics It was thought to be very desirable if the ML Panel, in
      cooperation with Merit, could periodically post statistics
      something like the following:
      o number of subscribers
      o number of posts
      o distribution of posts per subscriber
      o number of warning issued
      o list of threads that required intervention
      o number of bannings, and for how long
      But we do not want to create too much manual work beyond the
      normal work flow.
    • Joint call with ML Panel: SC will invite the ML Panel to the next SC call on 17 November 23:00 GMT. We can split the call, the first half with the ML folk and second for SC business.

      We have also scheduled a joint call on the 18th to jointly review and discuss ML Panel volunteers prior to the SC making a decision.

November 17, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Christopher Morrow
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman (ex officio)
  • William B. Norton
  • Jared Mauch

Apologies received:

  • Philip Smith

On vacation:

  • Betty Burke

Joined by guest artists from ML Panel:

  • Steve Gibbard
  • Susan Harris
  • Rob Seastrom


  • Chris Malayter


  1. NANOG 35 Review:
    • Attendance, review numbers: Attendance numbers look good except for low proportion of women. When will we get survey results? RSN, maybe Monday.
    • Finance, Betty: No financial final numbers yet. Complicated by joint meeting with ARIN. Hope to break even or be a bit ahead.
    • Program, Review: Nothing we did not say last time. People seemed to like it. We will know more when we see the review comments.

      Betty added that Carol and Betty felt that the hotel staff were challenging, especially the AV staff. Another lesson re-learned was to do a better job of planning horsepower for AC power installation into the ballroom. None of this was customer (i.e. attendee) affecting. But Equinix and MERIT had do work hard to keep this so.

      Steve Gibbard noted that it took MERIT intervention for him to get the group rate from the hotel.

      Steve wanted an A/B video switch on the podium. Also, the MERIT laptop was a bit slow and will be replaced.

  2. NANOG 36
    • Logistics: Hotel contract is in final negotiation pending decisions on the schedule etc.
    • Newcomers' session: Steve suggests that this be immediately before the open community meeting. Betty asked if there should be nosh. General consensus was yes.

      Bill asked what the content would be. Steve suggested a short introduction to NANOG, meeting structure, introduction to socializing, pushing old timers to mingle and take on mentoring. Total time might be an hour, followed by half an hour before community meeting.

    • Community / SC meeting

      Yes, we should have one, and probably Sunday afternoon or evening. Note that there is maybe 15% attendance.

      Last time we used two hours for the meeting. Two hours should be sufficient.

      Shoot for ending at 19:00 so starting of newcomers' meeting at 15:30.

    • Mon-Wed or stick to current schedule

      Consensus from PC was Monday to Wednesday. Mornings would be general session, afternoons would be BoFs, tutorials, etc.

    • Box lunches?

      There seems to be no way to do this without driving costs. Maybe we can explore next time.

      Bill reported that Susan Harris had made a comment to not commercialize NANOG while Josh wanted to allow commercial interest to significantly brand the meeting. Bill thought that this direction was normal and inevitable. Steve wanted to make clear that sponsors could not affect the program.

      For example, could there be significant signage, vendor speeches at lunch, gear demos at breaks. Betty wants to look at and pursue seeing if reserved hotel space could be used as a break room where informal gatherings could occur and vendors could use that space to get more eyeball time and space. This would be a fine line.

      Bill was specifically looking to get lunch sponsorship. in exchange for speech and signage. Steve noted that we have already gone down this road with hosted parties. He noted that it was critical that these must be open to all NANOG attendees.

      If NANOG space, time, name, or other resources are used, any event should be open to all NANOG attendees.

    • Terminal room?

      The terminal room will not be done at Dallas, but there will be at least one black and white printer available which is friendly to common operating systems. This might be at the registration desk.

      Joe noted that a few people asked for one kiosk computer to be available.

    • Program

      Call for presentations will go out tonight or tomorrow. Deadline will be approximately 15 December. Steve is hoping for an automated submission system.

  3. ITU / Richard Hill Workshop

    We responded to Richard. Steve had told Richard that NANOG as an organization was not the way to go, but that he should deal with operators as individuals.

  4. Mailing List Panel process with ML Panel present
    • Candidate list review: Steve Gibbard had emailed a list of candidates.
    • Publishing Statistics: SC formally requested the statistics as stated in minutes of 2005.11.03.

      Susan says she needs Sue Joiner for the automatable part. Betty says that this can and will be done.

      Jared said that people really care about the metrics of the actions of the ML panel, warnings issued, topics stopped, posters banned.

      We will have the reports for December at the end of December on the NANOG website, and monthly thereafter.

    • ML Panel Candidate choice after ML Panel left call:

      It was discussed whether the position should be filled by someone from other than North America. It was generally felt that NANOG is open to all and all should be able to be represented. All should be encouraged to participate in all committees and be judged on the merit of their contributions not where they reside.

      There was discussion of whether such positions should require having attended NANOG meetings, but rather be on merit and contribution to and understanding of the culture.

      There was considerable discussion of the candidates and the process.

      Stephen Wilcox was chosen to replace Steve Gibbard on the ML Panel.

December 1, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Philip Smith
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman
  • William B. Norton
  • Jared Mauch

Apologies received:

  • Christopher Morrow
  • Betty Burke
  • Joe Abley


  1. Finance report from los angeles meeting (left from last sc call): Postponed as Betty could not make the call.
  2. Review survey comments from last meeting: Most people seemed to like the BoFs being in the afternoons.

    BoFs were tight on time, talks were tight on time, etc. Planned schedule for Dallas is about the same number of hours. So PC may leave some more slack in schedule.

  3. Status of next meeting:

    Call for presentations went out a couple of weeks ago. The usual trickle so far.

December 15, 2005, Conference Call Minutes


  • Christopher Morrow
  • Randy Bush
  • Steve Feldman
  • William B. Norton
  • Jared Mauch
  • Philip Smith

Apologies received:

  • Betty Burke
  • Joe Abley


  1. Policy on Copyright of Slides: There have been cases where potential speakers have had their slide sets returned for editing because someone found the copyright notices on the pages objectionable. However, Randy has had copyright on his slides in the past, and Philip pointed out that cisco owns copyright on his slides. A sensible policy would see copyright remain with the author, with Merit granted a licence to distribute the content without royalties. Will follow up with Merit lawyers.
  2. Joint Meetings with ARIN: It was confirmed that the SC is all in favour of continuing to organise joint meetings with ARIN in the future.
  3. Other Joint Meetings: Opportunities for holding meetings in conjunction with other organisations was discussed.
  4. Next Meeting Status: Submissions are quite thin. No other major news to report.
  5. Previous Meeting (Los Angeles) Finance Report: Skipped as Betty not able to make this call.

Call on December 29 cancelled due to holiday. Next call January 12.