Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

Attending:

1. Finance report from Los Angeles meeting (left from last two SC call): Bottom line for Los Angeles meeting. Expenses were kept within budget target, and we had fantastic support from vendors et al. in support of the meeting. $27k was the net, and makes up for the loss in the financial reserve we have been seeing over the last year or so.

   The reserve fund currently approximates the total costs of one meeting should we have an unplanned failure of funding for a meeting.

   A full accounting will be posted to the web site after review.

2. Status of Dallas meeting Scheduling on Valentine's day has caused pain. An outside proposal for candy compensation was considered inappropriate.

   We are seeing normal small pre-registration for this far in advance and before the program has been announced.

   The program is a bit thin, which is pretty usual considering the holidays and usual operator last-minutisms. But things are filling up. PC plans to end on Wednesday lunchtime.

   Sponsors are lining up, but we could use a few more.

   There will be a room for informal get-togethers. The host will provide kiosks, aka "express stations," with a computer, tied to the lobby area. There will also be a printer. There will be no terminal room.

   Newcomers' meeting will be held 15:30-17:00 on Sunday. There will be room for about 200, which is probably over-sufficient. PC Chair, Steve Feldman, will run the meeting.

   Community / Open SC meeting will be held 17:00-19:00 Sunday.

   • mailing list panel report
   • proposals to amend charter
   • budget
   • number of meetings per year
   • days of week, mon-wed, sun-tue
   • terminal room
   Betty has talked with the host and a wireless expert regarding help with the wireless. Merit will bring two additional network engineers to the meeting, one for WAN and one full time for wireless. She offered comp room and attendance to the wireless expert a la old multicast arrangement with University of Oregon. The wireless expert will get back to Betty in the next week. The network WAN connectivity looks to be on a very good track.

   Meet with ML Panel Monday breakfast; Meet with PC Monday lunch; SC Meeting Tuesday lunch.

3. We need to draft a proposal to amend the Charter to provide for ML Panel terms and selection.
4. The SC formally approves the annual joint meetings with ARIN.
5. There was discussion of a joint meeting with I2 in 2007. This is just at the talking stage, and has been discussed for a year or two. The current discussion is not for a merged meeting per se, as I2 wants to be at a university venue, and NANOG can not fit most university venues. One of the days would be a joint program developed by both the NANOG PC and the I2 PC. The I2 meeting would be open to all NANOG attendees. The SC encourages the NANOG meeting folk to move forward on this and approves of the plan per the above descriptions.
6. Copyright on NANOG slides - who owns the presentations given at NANOG? The trademark for "NANOG" is held by Merit. There is no formal Merit policy for copyright notices on presentations. This has been a tradition within the PC. The PC proposes that authors retain copyright and grant NANOG the right to distribute freely. Merit will deal with the lawyers on this. This should be designed to minimize invocation of company lawyers.

   The PC will write up a proposed policy along the lines that 1) Logos only on title page of foil 2) Copyright notices allowed on slides, but absolutely minimal so they do not put the company name in everyone's faces on every foil.

Attending:

1. NANOG 36 Update: Betty provided an update on the logistics of the Dallas meeting. Network setup is on-target; Bill Fenner wants to do some SNMP testing over the wireless network. Outside assistance for wireless network is not nailed down, and Merit plan to take extra staff to handle it. Registration numbers are light (~200), which is less than half of the target.

   Programme: Programme is coming together. A reception is planned for Monday night. Beer'n'gear is on-track; lots of space planned for breakout sessions.

   Lunches: Steve and Betty discussed lunch scheduling. Lunches are planned as per web copy.

2. NANOG 37 Update: A tentative location and host for the June meeting was discussed.
3. ARIN XVIII Update: A tentative location for the October ARIN meeting was discussed.
4. Mailing List Committee: It was noted that there had been an incident on the main list last week in which a nanog-post subscriber had their posting privileges revoked after sending a message which contained profanity.

   It was not clear whether the normal mailing list admin team process had been followed in this case.

   It was agreed that the SC should approach the mailing list admin team and request clarification. Joe volunteered to draft and send the request.

Attending:

1. Dallas Meeting - Recap: There are no financials for Dallas yet. Merit is still assembling the details. As hotel expenses were on the lighter side, it is likely that the meeting broke even. The lack of break sponsors did not help.

   Some registration fees are being contested. It was not clearly tied to the East Coast weather issues. There is a no refund after a certain date policy, approximately ten days before the meeting.

   Surveys are in. Merit discussed internally the multicast and wireless issues. Merit will work with the University of Oregon folk on the multicast. Merit will try to work more closely with members of the community on wireless. Some logistics might be interesting to adjust. E.g., possibly putting break food in the spin-out rooms. The survey results are posted publicly, but have not been announced to the lists, e.g., nanog-futures.

   It was interesting that the attendees seem about equally divided on the issue of Sun-Tue or Mon-Wed scheduling. Of course, most folk seemed to assume that they were the majority. There were good suggestions for improvement of the experiment such as moving the basic tutorials early so the folk wanting more concentration could come later. There were a lot of negative comments about the hotel and its location.

   BoFs were popular and having them in the afternoons seemed well received. Lightning talks were very successful. Should there be Q&A for them? Let folk grab them in the corridor afterward. Perhaps a second lightning slot for rebuttals would be useful. There was a good response rate to the survey, over one third. Should we do a raffle to get more responses? On the other hand, do we need to pay the overhead to get the ideas of members who we have to bribe to tell us what they think? Discussion was indecisive, but should be continued.

   The next community meeting should use the circular seating approach of the Peering BoF. This is hard to webcast.

   The stream and the record are currently showing the presos, which are already available on the web. They should show the speaker and the audience speaking from the mic. What do we need in the Newcomers' meeting? More protein. Pictures of past meetings and people. Maybe use a panel to give a more rapid-fire diverse view.

2. June Meeting: Kind folk have been strong-armed into hosting the next meeting after our host backed out at the last minute. The date look likely to be June 4-6. Location is yet to be firmed up because of hotel negotiations. The meeting will use the Tue-Wed format again, with whatever modifications can be made based on experience and the survey results. The call for presentations is being modified, with Ren Provo leading.

   The following meeting will be in St. Louis with ARIN on 8-13 October. This will be put on the web site. February 2007 is close but there is no hotel contract yet. The likely dates are 4-7 February. Venues are lined up and contracts are being worked for June and October 2007.

3. ML Panel charter amendment: Was posted to nanog-futures. The silence was deafening. This usually means that everyone is fine or bored, but could mean that it is a disaster waiting to happen. The charter requires 30 signatures to be put on the ballot. How should we get them? Correction, the SC can just put it up. A web page should be made for charter ammendment proposals.
4. Status of Action Items

       - A PC charter ammendment needs to be drafted by the PC Chair.
         This is in process within the PC.
   
       - A PC copyright policy change document is needed.  Merit has a
         meeting with legal counsel next week.
   
       - ML Panel policy and procedures, a much more complete draft
         needed.  This is in draft circulation and being discussed.
         SC will review at next meeting.
   
       - Joe fixed the minutes from one of the two missed meetings.
         The meeting of 2005.12.15 are being reconstructed.
   
   

Attending:

1. June Meeting: We will announce in the next hour or so that the meeting is at the San Jose Convention Center with the Hilton being the conference hotel. The final costing problems are being sorted, with the LAN wiring being the serious problem, with bids up to $30k! The hotel does not have meeting rooms large enough for us and someone has a monopoly on the demarc/LAN at the Convention Center. The reason the finances are of such concern is that the February Dallas loss may be about $39k.
2. Elections: By the next meeting, Jared promised to have a timeline and pieces for the next election which will cover dates and what has to be done by each.
3. Status of Action Items
   • A PC charter ammendment needs to be drafted by the PC Chair. This is in process within the PC. Steve will have a draft in two weeks. Betty noted that the SC election process, 6.4, needs to be cleared up as it was designed for the bootstrap and now needs to describe the stable on-going model. Perhaps we should ask Dan Golding and Steve Gibbard could be asked to coordinate an informal charter revision group.
   • A PC copyright policy change document is needed. Merit has a meeting with legal counsel next week. Betty has been working with legal and should soon have a small notice to go in the acceptance message to presenters.
   • ML Panel policy and procedures, a much more complete draft needed. This is in draft circulation and being discussed. SC will review at next meeting. Joe will do more soon.
   • Cat Okita's proposed changes to ML ammendment proposal. Randy incorporated Cat's changes to the ammendment proposal. The SC will plan to review and propose to the membership for approval at the next cycle.
   • Posting of old minutes: Done.

Attending:

• June Meeting: Betty reported that the registration page is up, although that has not been announced. About 20 people have registered. The room block has not been announced since there are still contract modifications needed before it can be signed; the registration page has not been announced because there was a desire to announce the registration page at the same time as the hotel block.

  Betty is hopeful that the remaining language changes will be agreed tonight, and that the contract will be executed tomorrow afternoon (Friday 2006-04-21).

  Bill raised the question of whether the meeting should just be cancelled, given the continued delays. It was considered amongst several present that the damage to NANOG's reputation if we cancelled would be considerable. Betty estimates that the financial liability to the NANOG account at Merit would be greater if we cancelled than if we ran a meeting which had poor attendance. There was no consensus that NANOG 37 should be cancelled.

  Philip suggested that both the registration page and the location of the hotel should be announced as soon as possible, even without the room block being signed, in order to give people the information they need to plan travel. There was some concern that announcing the hotel before the room block contract is signed might jeopardise the final negotiations with the hotel. However, Betty feels that the hotel is as keen to have closure on this as we are. Betty will check whether hotel sign-ups quoting "NANOG" will be counted in the NANOG room block even if they start happening before the hotel contract is signed. She will have the registration and hotel announcements made as soon as it is feasible for them to happen.

  Steve noted that there is a respectable number of proposals in the queue for San Jose, and that the first PC conference call to discuss them will be on Friday (2006-04-21).

• Improving the meeting scheduling process It was observed that many in the community are understandably rattled by the delays in finalising arrangements for NANOG 37.

  Betty and team are doing everything they can to have contracts signed for NANOG 38 and NANOG 39 before the start of NANOG 37, so that they can be prominently announced in San Jose.

  We need to consider changes to the way that meetings are organised in order to reduce the chances of the NANOG 37 problems happening again. Betty observed that it would be far easier to organise meetings if Merit took the lead in venue selection, and then sought donations of bandwidth from sponsors, rather than also leaving the venue selection (and associated logistics) to hosts to complete, which is what happens now. This would not preclude the possibility of a host proposing more than just bandwidth, and contributing more extensively to the logistics of holding a meeting in a location that Merit had no prior experience of.

  It was observed that we need firm timelines for meeting arrangements. For example, we need all contracts signed and the date/venue announced for each meeting six months before the meeting takes place. Hosts need to have a clear idea of the deadlines involved when they become involved in a meeting, and if the deadlines expire Merit needs a contingency venue ready to ensure that the community is not kept waiting.

• Assessing community opinion about two meetings vs. three An unnamed member of the community approached Ren, asking whether the community could be polled in San Jose to guage opinions about whether NANOG should hold two meetings per year rather than three. The request appeared to be motivated by the delays in arranging NANOG 37, and was discussed briefly on the PC list.

  The SC will actively seek out community opinion on this issue by:

  • including it on the agenda at the community meeting in San Jose;
  • including it on the survey;
  • encouraging discussion nanog-futures.
  It seems possible that the issue of two meetings vs. three is currently clouded by the disquiet resulting from the NANOG 37 delays, and the question relayed through Ren certainly seemed to link the two issues. The SC would prefer the NANOG 37 scheduling issue and the two vs. three issue each to be discussed on their own merits, and therefore would prefer to defer public consultation (e.g. via nanog-futures) until San Jose, when the current uncertainty will have been resolved, and the next two meetings will hopefully have been announced. This approach also has the advantage of not second-guessing the finalisation of contracts for NANOG 39.

  It was noted that the survey forms are available on the web, and is not just for those physically present at the meeting. Merit will make changes to the survey closer to the meeting such that a relevant set of questions can be presented to respondants based on whether they attended the meeting (physically or remotely) -- i.e. those who wish to comment on issues such as two vs. three should be able to do so without having to comment on presentations they didn't see.

  It was noted that neither consensus on nanog-futures nor a weight of opinion reported through survey forms can really be considered representative of the whole community. Merit suggested including survey questions in the web forms used for PC and SC member voting.

  The SC recognises that there are good arguments both for reducing the number of meetings to two, and also for keeping them at three, and that the right decision will only be possible with extensive consultation from the community.

  Steve will ask Ren to lead the process of distilling a series of survey questions relating to this issue which will help gauge opinion accurately.

• Liasing further with Merit about holding two meetings vs. three Betty has run the numbers through Merit's financial model, and concluded that if there were to be two well-attended meetings per year (each attracting 350-400 paying attendees) the cost of meeting registration would need to raise by USD 75 in order to cover costs. This is due to fixed costs for NANOG which would need to be covered by two meetings rather than three.

  It was noted that with the contracts close to signing for NANOG 38 and NANOG 39, and assuming that the February meeting would be the one that was dropped, the earliest we could do this would be 2008.

• Charter Aamendments: PC charter amendement has been distributed amongst the PC and SC. There have been a two comments so far; Steve will make changes, recirculate amongst PC and SC, then send to nanog-futures to solicit more feedback.

  Merit has not met with legal counsel regarding PC copyright policy changes, due to being preoccupied with more pressing scheduling issues. Betty recognises this issue is important, however, and it will be actioned as soon as possible.

  ML panel policy and procedures documentation; no progress since last call. Nobody else on the call had free time to help out. Joe hopes to have made progress by next call.

  Betty noted that Merit can assist with publishing proposed amendments to the charter on www.nanog.org, e.g. by highlighting proposed changes of text with strike-out or colour.

  Jared discussed a review of the charter revision proposals by some of those responsible for the original charter text. Real life intervened, but he hopes to rope volunteers into such a review next week.

• Other Business: Betty would like the next SC call to happen on Wednesday, May 3 rather than Thursday, May 4, but at the same time. To be resolved via e-mail on SC list.

Attending:

• State of June meeting and any needed actions
  
  Steve said that the agenda looks good, so many good submissions that we had to reject some good ones.
  
  Betty talked with hotel and conf center and all looks in line. Streamline Comms, the in-site LAN for the convention center, still wants $23k for use of their LAN even though all transport is ours and done. Needless to say, this is still being worked.
  
  Betty will schedule space/time for SC, ML, and PC meetings.
  
  Bill raised the issue of how we survey whether folk want two or three meetings a year. Betty has drafted a question for the survey and is sending it to Ren.
  
  
• Site planning for February meeting
  
  It will be the first week of February. We don't yet know where.
  
  
• State of charter ammendments and how we plan to organize/present (singly or a mass or ...)
  
  Steve and Randy will put together the current state as we know it and start an email cycle with the traditional drafters to get the pieces ready to discuss in San Jose. The traditional drafters will be asked to take the lead on on this.
  
  

Attending:

• State of June meeting and any needed actions
  
  Steve reported everything is looking good, the agenda is filled, and we're all set to go.
  
  Betty reported published agenda touch-ups will be done. Betty and MERIT crew are heading to San Jose in the morning. There are still net configuration issues to be worked out. Tony and crew will do the LAN work tomorrow and set up wireless. Hope to have all working Saturday.
  
  Yesterday, registration was 385, which is a bit light, though we were hoping for more because it is in San Jose. Note that is not 385 paying. Bill opined this is a relatively light NANOG pre-registration. We hope for local walk-ins.
  
  This meeting will be financially OK as we picked up break sponsors. But the Convention Center wiring will still cost $10k. Negotiations continue, but we don't hold up much hope. Extortion is the problem.
  
  Although transit is actually provided by Merit with support from NANOG Hosts and Sponsors. Sponsors include, InterWorld Communications, NTT America, Inc., Switch and Data, Triango Broadband Wireless, and Bungi Communications, Inc. The last mile path is 150 Almaden and then microwave to the Hilton.
  
  As we are in a convention center, the room is huge. So we are using carpet and drapes to make it livable size.
  
  
• Site planning for Future Meetings
  
  St. Louis in October with ARIN is locked down.
  
  Joe is nearing completion of a plan for Toronto in the first week of February. As this is not locked down, members should not make arrangements. We still have to do hotel contracts etc.
  
  Josh is looking at Miami for the first week of June. This is far from sure.
  
  In a few weeks, we should know where and when the October 2007 meeting with ARIN will be.
  
  
• State of charter ammendments and how we plan to organize and present (singly or a mass or ...)
  
  Randy and Steve are working with Dan Golding and Steve Gibbard, the old charter group, to get the known charter revision proposal pieces in order for San Jose Meeting.
  
  Dan has most of the pieces together, but we don't yet know whether we will be in presentation shape.
  
  
• Press and Photographs
  
  Press may be present in San Jose. MERIT may prominently tag their badges.
  
  MERIT will ask that no pictures be taken in the actual meetings themselves. This ensures that members are free from having their picture published without their consent and without prejudice as to who is taking the pictures.
  
  
• Status of Action Items
  • RB and SF are working with Dan Golding and Steve Gibbard, the old charter group, to get the known charter revision proposal pieces in order for San Jose Meeting.
    
    
  • A PC copyright policy change document is needed. Betty has been working with legal and will soon have have a small notice to go in the acceptance message to presenters.
    
    
  • ML Panel policy and procedures, a much more complete draft needed. Joe is working this, but it's like swimming up- stream.
  
  
  

Attending:

• San Jose meeting review
  
  Betty is optimistic that is will be closer to break-even than the budget planned. Shipping and travel costs were lower than expected, but the hotel bill is not yet in. Total attendance was 428, possibly light do to the last minute scheduling of meeting.
  
  Cursory review of survey results was pretty positive about program. Many preferred the new format, though others felt the meeting went unnecessarily longer. Many people who could not walk a block did not like the hotel food. A fair number of possibly volunteers to host future meetings. The 2/3 meetings per year question is still split. Final real numbers needed. But we only got 115 survey results, 50 of them hard-copy, which are harder to process.
  
  Steve reported that he and the rest of the PC were happy with the program. A weak point was talks running over-time forcing cut-off of good discussion. There has been suggestion of having more lightning talks. BoFs were felt to be too short, and having plenary sessions run late exacerbated the problem.
  
  
• October / St. Louis Meeting logistics
  
  PC has rough timetable with CFP in July, and want to have a program published a month before the meeting.
  
  - Betty and Carol are coordinating with ARIN as usual.
  
  - MERIT is talking with Josh Snowhorn, who wants to host a reception. Josh also wants to hold a tag-on private commercial peering community meeting Wednesday morning. That would conflict with ARIN. ARIN will have to approve this. Betty will get more information next week and report back.
  
  - We have a hotel contract, and the information should go up on the web site next week. Betty could not remember the hotel name.
  
  - There has been a request for day-care for attendees with small children. Joe suggested that the registration process could help folk wanting day-care to coordinate with each-other. Also, we should check if the hotel has services.
  
  
• Segmented Registration Fees?
  
  The idea would allow people to cheaply attend one segment which is important to them. But this would create a serious administrative burden on MERIT.
  
  Steve suggested a one day pass that costs the same as a full meeting pass :-) .
  
  Joe said that we don't want to get into detailed rules on what constitutes 'attendance', since it's one of those things that is difficult to define in a policy regardless of the fact that in practice most people find it easy to recognise. Randy suggested that people who think they are too privileged to register just won't register, regardless of whether day passes or similar mechanisms are made available.
  
  There was consensus amongst the SC that a system of segmented meeting fees should not be implemented.
  
  Should folk be able to get a cheap pass to Beer and Gear for partners and friends. Joe suggested that partners of registered attendees should be able to attend social functions gratis; it's good manners. Everyone agreed with that.
  
  
• Should Matthew Petach's meeting notes be archived in a fashion more easily found than the email archive?
  
  Definitely. How about they are linked to the actual talk on the web site, just as Stan Barber's used to be.
  
  We might have to give Matthew some support, but will cross that bridge when we come to it.
  
  
• NANOG Meeting Registration Policy
  
  It's posted on the web site. Get over it. Folk with serious suggestions should make them.
  
  Carol has asked to refine the student policy. She wanted to eliminate the local students fee wavier. Why should they pay less than a student who had transportation expenses? Folk agreed that student rates should be the same wherever they live.
  
  
• Press Photography
  
  Informal legal advice was received that NANOG can not prevent commercial press from taking pictures unless the community formally agrees to place specific restrictive conditions. See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/msg01150.html.
  
  Therefore the one-time restrictions placed in the San Jose meeting will not be repeated. I.e. there will continue to be no general policy which restricts photography at NANOG, in meeting rooms, hallways or elsewhere.
  
  
• Mailing List FAQ
  
  There is a team that will work on revisions to make it less strongly proscriptive and more informative. Joe is on that team, so is helping liaise.
  
  
• Charter Amendment process and status
  
  Dan Golding and Steve Gibbard are working on this and Steve will work with them on this.
  
  
• Calls for nomination for SC, PC, and MLC
  
  We need to get the SC call for nominations out in time to run the whole election process in October. I.e. we should do something soon. Next week, Betty will check that the web technology is in place and working. She will get back to us by our next con call.
  
  Calls for PC and MLC nominations need to have gone out in time for the SC to decide during or immediately after the October meeting.
  
  
• ML Committee
  
  We want to put another member on the MLC. We need to go through the process of an open call. Randy will issue the call based on the process used last time.
  
  
• PC Chair
  
  The current charter states that the PC is to choose a new chair at the Spring meeting, and they neglected to do this. The PC is now doing this by email.
  
  
• Conf Call Timing
  
  Big problem how not to hit East Coast family times. This week we did 01:00 GMT. We'll try 00:00 GMT next time.
  
  

• Charter Amendments in shape for October
  
  
• PC Copyright Policy document changes approval and publication
  
  
• IPR Form for Video Recordings
  
  
• ML Committee Policy and Procedures
  
  

Attending:

• NANOG mailing list FAQ
  
  Joe reported that he has started a conversation on the nanog-faq@ list. The current issues with the FAQ have been framed. He suspects the FAQ volunteers will decide to appoint an editor to fulfil the role that SRH once played (there has been one volunteer for that role step forward). There have been no text changes yet.
  
  
• Documentation of NANOG mailing list admin process
  
  Joe reported no progress. Nobody else had made any progress either.
  
  
• Solicitation of new MLC volunteer
  
  There has been no progress. Jared suggested we should invite the MLC to the next SC call, as has been discussed many times previously. Joe to send mail to the MLC extending such an invitation, and also reminding them that a public call for volunteers for the MLC should happen soon.
  
  
• Conference call timing
  
  All agreed the new timing was good, especially if the call could be kept to under an hour.
  
  
• NANOG 38 preparations
  
  Steve noted details of the joint NANOG/ARIN room block are still being finalised, and the information will be posted as soon as the hotel is ready to accept reservations. Joe noted that some NANOG 38 details are now published on the NANOG web page. Steve hopes to issue the CFP for NANOG 38 next week.
  
  
• NANOG 39 preparations
  
  Still ongoing. No hotel contract has been signed, yet. Joe has a call with Betty tomorrow.
  
  
• Charter Amendments
  
  Steve to follow up with some of the authors of the current charter with a set of proposed revisions.
  
  

Attending:

• IPR/Legal Issues
  
  There are two issues: the content of slides, and the rights to the videocasting and archiving of the actual presentation of the slides.
  
  Merit wants consent from the presenter for their image to be broadcast and for their presentation materials to be archived. This is, in effect, codifying existing practice and providing legal protection for Merit. Merit require similar consent to be given for other activities they are involved in, and Merit's legal staff want the paper trail cleaned up for NANOG, too.
  
  Merit posted the draft consent form to the web page as soon as it had been approved by Merit's lawyers. That has now been pulled. The appropriate procedure is for a proposal to be discussed on nanog- futures, since the support of the NANOG community is required.
  
  People who don't want to be videocast don't have to be. However, for general session and tutorial presentations it is a requirement that presentation materials be made available for archival by Merit. There is no such requirement for presentations made in BOFs, since that promotes an informal atmosphere of candid information sharing.
  
  The draft consent form as posted gave rights to the individual being videocast to the video itself, so if presenters want to use the video of their presentation for some other purpose, they are able to.
  
  Steve will lead the discussion on nanog-futures on this issue.
  
  
• Charter Amendments
  
  Proposed amendments have been dressed very nicely on the NANOG web page by Dan Golding. Once some minor clean-up has been completed, Randy will lead discussion of the amendments on nanog-futures.
  
  
• Mailing List Admin Committee Appointment
  
  There have been six volunteers. The call for volunteers is not quite over, but will be shortly. Once it is complete the SC will send the list of volunteers to the mailing list admin team in order to canvass opinions. The SC will make a decision at some point after that.
  
  
• NANOG 38 Status (October, St Louis)
  
  Steve reported that the PC held their first conference call a few hours before this call. A fair number of presentations were accepted. More submissions will be solicited. Things are going well considering there are still a few months to go before the meeting. The goal is to have the agenda posted by early September.
  
  Betty reported no concerns with logistics with the meeting or with coordination with ARIN. It is not yet certain whether there will be a Sunday night reception, partly because it's not clear whether the programme will accommodate one. There is room for 3 more sponsors at the Beer and Gear.
  
  NANOG 38 will feature a new web-based registration system which is designed to reduce the registration work for each meeting and also to facilitate voting. The SC and the PC will help test the system before it goes live.
  
  
• NANOG 39 Status (February, Toronto)
  
  Betty and Joe are still talking to the Sheraton in Toronto. No contract has been signed yet. There are some outstanding issues with NANOG vs. hotel wifi which need to be resolved.
  
  
• NANOG 40 Status (June, TBA)
  
  The city that Merit have been working on for NANOG 40 will not work, for reasons of timing, costs and sponsorship. Merit will be working through the list of alternate potential hosts who have indicated willingness to help in the past.
  
  
• NANOG 41 Status (October, TBA)
  
  Merit is working with ARIN on arrangements for NANOG 41.
  
  
• Mailing List Committee Policy and Procedures
  
  No progress.
  
  
• FAQ/Wiki
  
  Work is proceeding. Hope to open the doors to the general NANOG- going public in the next little while.
  
  

Attending:

• Steering Committee Election in shape for October
  
  
  • Call for candidates
    
    Betty will send template from last time to SC, SC will modify, and Randy will post to -announce and -futures.
    
    
  • Process in place?
    
    It will use the same voting mechanics as last time with a new authentication front end. This will be tested over the next weeks.
  
  
  
• Charter Amendments in shape for October
  
  See http://www.nanog.org/charter/
  
  What is currently on web site needs to have the three options for proposed amendment 2006-03 regarding SC/PC overlap made more clear. Betty will liaise with the developers of the software that will be used for voting to find a suitable way to rearrange the three options.
  
  The voting system needs to be checked that it can acommodate the charter votes. Merit will do so.
  
  Joe will stir up the mailing lists so folk have discussed and aware. And this will be on agenda for the Open Meeting in St. Louis.
  
  
• Open Meeting Plan
  
  To help deal with the non-terminating Open Meeting problem, maybe we should hold an informal SC BoF during the week. We will also try to predetermine a time budget as well as having all presos on the web beforehand.
  
  
• ML Committee Appointments post St. Louis
  
  
  • Call for candidates
    
    Currently, there is no requirement that the ML appointment cycle be run now for the Octber meeting. If the proposed amendment 2006-01 passes, then after the meeting the new SC will run a normal process.
  
  
  
• PC Appointments post St. Louis
  
  Steve will call for nominations in the next few weeks.
  
  After the October meeting, the new SC will appoint the new PC memebers.
  
  
• PC Replacement Appointment
  
  There were three volunteers. The PC recommended Nick Feamster. The SC discussed the candidates, and followed the recommendation of the PC. Nick Feamster was appointed to the PC.
  
  
• Status of Planning for October Meeting
  
  Betty reports the logistics are on track. The announcement page will change to point the IPv6 workshop on Sunday. Sponsorship is doing well. Registration is at a normal pace.
  
  
  • The SC plans to meet with the ML on Monday for breakfast.
    
    
  • The SC plans to meet with the PC on Monday for lunch.
    
    
  • The SC will hold a work meeting of the current SC at Tuesday breakfast.
    
    
  • The new SC will meet with the old SC for Tuesday dinner.
    
    
  The PC had their second meeting today. The agenda is farly well worked out. They feel good about the program, and will be posting the preliminary program to the web site and the list by Monday.
  
  
• Status of Winter and Springs Meetings
  
  These are on track. There is a preliminary contract for February in Toronto. We should be able to execute it next week.
  
  For June, the host and locale are not locked down. But Merit hops to have this by the October meeting.
  
  

• Charter Amendments in shape for October
• PC Copyright Policy document changes approval and publication
• IPR Form for Video Recordings
• ML Committee Policy and Procedures
• Mailing List FAQ Update

Attending:

• Next Meetings
  
  St. Louis logistics are fine. Registration is 278 so far, which is low for this time in the process. We are still working the last few Beer and Gear sponsor slots.
  
  We are waiting for contract back from Toronto. It feels under control.
  
  
• October Elections
  
  
  • Charter Amendments web still needs to be fixed. Otherwise it is OK. Email has been sent to Dan Golding for Steve's fixes. But the 2006-03 on PC/SC exclusivity also needs to be update. The method of balloting has been fixed for this. Betty will see the web page is fixed.
    
    Formally, we need final SC approval of the Charter Ballot. Betty will update web page and we will review and approve in email.
    
    Steve asked to add one more amendment to handle conflicting amendments to state that the one(s) with the most votes is taken to win.
    
    
  • SC Election call for volunteers was sent to nanog-announce. So far there have been no nominations.
    
    
  • PC Selection call for volunteers has not yet gone out.
    
    
  • ML Selection call for volunteers will go out after the October meeting.
  
  
  
• Side Meetings
  
  
  • The SC plans to meet with the ML on Monday for breakfast.
  • The SC plans to meet with the PC on Monday for lunch.
  • The SC will hold a work meeting of the current SC at Tuesday breakfast.
  • The PC will have its usual Tuesday lunch meeting. Don will be invited to this.
  • The new SC will meet with the old SC for Tuesday dinner.
  
  
  
• Clarification of Speaker Registration Fee Waiver Policy
  
  Proposed:
  • For general session talks and tutorials, the registration fee will be waived for a maximum of two speakers. Fees for non-speaking co-authors will not be waived.
    
    
  • For general session panels, fees will be waived one panel moderator and all panelists.
    
    
  • For BOFs, fees will be waived for a maximum of two co-moderators.
    
    
  For future meetings, it will be restricted to one speaker / moderator and all panelists.
  
  
• A Proposed AUP Addition

  8. Challenge/response sender white-listing software which requires interaction by any party to validate a post to the NANOG mailing list as non-spam shall be treated by the list administration team like any other condition that generates a bounce message. Subscribers with software (such as but not limited to TMDA) that is (mis)configured in this fashion are subject to removal from the list without notice, and are welcome to resubscribe if and when their software is fixed.

  was not approved because there was a feeling that the proposal was too technical and would result in too much quibbling. But the SC really liked the general idea.
  
  Rob will announce this on nanog-futures. He will then try to get consensus from the community to have a proposed amendment to the AUP to include all auto-respondings to postings.
  
  
• Mailing List Archival Policy and Implementation
  
  Rob said he understood why Merit did what they did. But that does not mean he likes it and would welcome un-edit alternatives.
  
  Many of the SC were disappointed that Merit made the choice they did. But there are alternative archives.
  
  Betty clarified that the message in question was edited / redacted.
  
  Betty confirmed Merit's willingness to host an easy-to-find page on the NANOG web page which would contain a summary of what messages in the NANOG archive had ever been subject to editing.
  
  Joe proposed that we encourage others to keep archives, and that they be listed on the NANOG web page, and that non complete archives should be flagged as such in that listing. Bill and Jared were not initially happy with listing others on the web page. Betty said Merit would have no problem listing others if the SC wished them to do so.
  
  Randy raised the issue that the SC and Merit were discussing the issue when Merit acted unilaterally. This was not a good move for the NANOG/Merit partnership and the public perception thereof. This could and should have been handled a lot better. Merit and the SC will endeavor to do so in the future.
  
  
  • The SC encourages organizations and individuals to operate public archives of the NANOG mailing list.
    
    
  • The SC encourages anybody operating such an archive to make a change log available in the event that the archive is edited.
    
    
  • The SC asks that Merit continue to make available historical raw format ftp archives of the NANOG list, so that anybody wanting to seed a new archive with historical data can do so easily.
    
    
  • The SC encourages the community to maintain a list of archives on the NANOG wiki, which will be linked to from the NANOG web page.
  
  
  
• Joe proposed to remove the link to the unmaintained ML FAQ and replace it with a link to the wiki. There was unanimous support for this.
  
  

• Charter Amendments web needs fixing
• PC Copyright Policy document changes approval and publication
• IPR Form for Video Recordings
• ML Committee Policy and Procedures

Present:

Betty, Joe P., Randy, Bill, Steve, Jared, Don, Philip, Joe A., Chris

• Introductions
  
  
• Thank you to Jared
  
  
• Welcome to Joe Provo
  
  
• Nomination of new SC Chair - Joe A.
  
  
• Discussion
  
  
• Election of New SC Chair - Joe Abley
  
  
• Per new Charter, Chris decided to stay on the SC. His name will be removed from the PC nominations list.
  
  

Attending:

1. MLC Update
   
   The MLC has appointed Rob Seastrom as chair and SC liason. New MLC members are coming up to speed. There have been few issues on the mailing list that needed attention since the new MLC has been in place.
   
   The MLC plans to hold bi-weekly conference calls for its volunteers, scheduled on the weeks where there is no SC call.
   
   The SC will send Rob a copy of the mailing list moderation process document that was circulated some time ago. This will act as a starting point for a fresh effort to document the mailing list admin process, which the MLC will work on and which the SC will review, at the MLC's request.
   
   MLC to send text for the two outstanding AUP change proposals to the SC before the next meeting.
   
   
2. Proposal to add the MLC's nominated SC liason to the steering@ and steering+@ mailing lists, ex-officio
   
   There was unanimous support for this. SC chair to action.
   
   
3. PC Update
   
   Steve Feldman was selected by the PC to act as chair following his re-appointment. The CFP for NANOG 39 is to be sent out in a day or two. The PC is aiming to have a draft agenda published by the beginning of January. NANOG 39 will follow the Sunday-Wednesday format.
   
   
4. Process by which Postel scholars should be nominated
   
   Randy suggested the following process for people to apply/nominate others for the Postel Scholarship:
   • send mail to steering@nanog.org with the following details:
     
     
     • normal contact info
     • brief description of the person being nominated
     • why the person nominated deserves the scholarship
     • what the person nominated will do with knowledge gained at NANOG/ARIN (e.g. leverage in their local community)
       
       
   There was unanimous support for this. Betty to document the process and details of the scholarship for publication on www.nanog.org; Randy to assist in reviewing the text before it is linked from the main page.
   
   
5. NANOG 38 (St Louis) review
   
   Steve's overall summary of the St Louis programme was that it was ok, but not great. This was reflected in the survey results. The PC intends to implement some changes for the next meeting based on experiences in St Louis.
   
   Betty commented that the meeting space in St Louis was good. The informal breakout room was well-used, but it would have been better for it to be closer to the main meeting room. The availability of printers is still important for meeting attendees. Power outside the ballroom is an issue, and a greater focus will be made in future meetings on making power strips, etc available in informal seating areas. The network was very good. The host was great.
   
   It was observed that the meeting suffered from a slow start on Monday morning. The number of completed surveys was very low, and we might need to look at providing incentives to complete the survey in future meetings (e.g. running a raffle amongst those who fill in the surveys with some appropriately-shiny gadget as a prize).
   
   
6. NANOG 39 (Toronto) status
   
   Hotel contract was signed by Merit some time ago, and the countersigned copy from the hotel has now been received. The room block is expected to be ready next week, at which point the name and location of the hotel can be made public.
   
   Network arrangements are on track. Internal wiring in the hotel will be built through the hotel's existing ethernet infrastructure, which has been inspected and which looks modern and tidy. The network will be reticulated back to 151 Front Street West where it will connect to the TorIX for donated peering and transit, and where Teleglobe will also provide transit. Two paths between the meeting hotel and 151 Front are planned. Merit plan to retain the same contractor as has been used in other recent meetings to deploy and operate the wireless network.
   
   Possible changes to the format of the beer'n'gear reception were discussed.
   
   Merit plan some new improvements to their AV broadcast of the meeting sessions in Toronto. The question of whether improving the broadcast of meetings might reduce attendance at meetings was discussed, and the consensus amongst the SC was that it wouldn't. Improving the quality of the AV would also benefit the archive.
   
   There was some discussion on the general topic of providing some mechanism for remote participants to send questions back to the meeting. It was pointed out that the EFNET #nanog channel is already well-used for this kind of thing, in an informal way. Betty mentioned that in the past attempts had been made to use e-mail to receive real-time comments from remote participants, but that it had not worked well.
   
   The structure and content of the newcomers meeting was discussed. Approaches taken at other regional meetings were mentioned. It is important to engage people and encourage interactive discussion; arranging seats in a non-lecture room manner might help with that. Bill's "History of NANOG" talk should be included. The newbie meeting might be arranged as an informal reception to encourage people to mix. Sending a welcome e-mail message to newcomers when they register might be helpful. Finding volunteer mentors for newcomers would also be good.
   
   
7. ARIN/NANOG Joint Meetings
   
   It was noted that many people found the compressed Sunday-Tuesday schedule rushed in St Louis, compared to the Sunday-Wednesday schedule that has been followed at other recent meetings. It was also noted that the ARIN programme might benefit from some enrichment, and that some presenters had given exactly the same talks at ARIN as well as at NANOG, which was perhaps not the best use of the available time.
   
   It was suggested that greater collaboration between the NANOG PC and their counterparts at ARIN might benefit both meetings. Additionally, modifying the joint meeting schedule to include some overlap on Wednesday might facilitate a less rushed NANOG schedule, whilst also providing some useful content to ARIN attendees who are not also attending the NANOG sessions. Merit to discuss with ARIN.
   
   
8. Next Meeting
   
   Next conference call in two weeks, Thursday 2006-11-16 2359 UTC.

Attending:

1. NANOG 39, Toronto
   
   Betty reported that weekly engineering/logistics meetings have been scheduled, starting next Wednesday. The registration page is ready to go live on Monday. Cisco and Teleglobe have offered to lend some additional switches to Merit to help build out the hotel network. Dates have been verified with Steve.
   
   Betty mentioned that having some good promotional material to describe sponsorship opportunities would make it far easier to get potential sponsors on-board. Bill has some notes towards such material, and will work with Betty to produce something.
   
   Bill noted that it would be good to get the agenda out early, even if early iterations of it just contain a list of accepted talks, with no timing. Since Toronto is not a large tech centre in a North American context, we need to give people every opportunity to decide to come, and having details of the programme released early and often will help with that. Betty agreed, and is in fact plans to do frequent updates to the meeting page on the web site are already in progress.
   
   
2. NANOG 40, 41, 42
   
   NANOG 40 is close to having a signed contract.
   
   NANOG 41 (joint with ARIN) is also close.
   
   For NANOG 42 there are a couple of potential hosts, and work has started on finalising the details.
   
   Carol is away on vacation right now, but is back on Monday. Since she is the responsible person at Merit for hotel contract negotiations, it was not possible to give good estimates on when NANOG 40/41/42 dates and locations can be announced, but Betty will provide the SC with an update next week.
   
   In general, locations and dates will be announced as soon as hotel contracts for each meeting have been finalised.
   
   
3. Sponsorship Ideas, Reflections on Reactions to Fee Increase
   
   Bill noted that it would be nice to be able to list specific improvements so that people could see what they are getting for their money. Joe Abley suggested that the fee increase is really to cover the costs of improvements that have actually already been implemented.
   
   Merit's goal is to always have the dates and venues for the next 18 months of meetings published, at all times. We are on track for that to be the case in the Toronto meeting, with published details for NANOG 40 through 42. That will provide one tangible improvement resulting from the increased costs that the fees were increased to cover.
   
   Betty raised the idea of having a recurring June meeting in Chicago. Chicago is a major airline hub and has a central location; Merit also has infrastructure in Chicago and can provide transit on its own network, assuming a tail circuit to a suitable hotel can be obtained. Hotels in Chicago are not especially cheap, but a multi-year deal with a hotel might result in a reasonably-priced room block. There was related discussion on the nanog-futures list today.
   
   There was unanimous interest in this idea from the SC. Betty to research options for hotels in order to get a feel for the likely cost savings resulting from this arrangement. Once those savings can be estimated, the idea will be presented for discussion on nanog- futures.
   
   
4. Postel Scholarship Application Logistics
   
   Betty noted that some interim information about the ISOC/Postel scholarship is now on the NANOG web page.
   
   Betty suggested that the process of applying for a scholarship should use a dedicated e-mail address, not steering@nanog.org. This could be set up as a list, with Randy and Betty as initial subscribers. There was no objection to this plan.
   
   
5. Mailing List Hosting
   
   Additional offers of donated server hardware have been received by Merit.
   
   Betty has a meeting next week with Merit sysadmins to discuss the process of moving NANOG services onto dedicated servers. After that meeting she should have a much better picture of what will be required in terms of hardware.
   
   
6. Next Meeting
   
   Normal time, 14 December 2006, 1900 Canada/Eastern.
   
   

The Steering Committee email address is steering@nanog.org.

November 22, 2006: Minutes of NANOG SC conference call

Attending:

  Joe Abley (chair)
  Betty Burke
  William B. Norton
  Philip SmithBR>   Robert Seastrom (ex-officio, MLC)
  Steve Feldman (ex-officio, PC)
  Randy Bush
  Joe Provo (note-taker)
  Chris Morrow

1. NANOG Financial Stability

Betty reported that there is continued pressure on Merit's NANOG meeting budget due to decreased revenue from recent meetings (relatively low attendance and some difficulty in attracting sponsors) and increased costs (e.g. due to deposits required by hotels when arranging contracts far in advance). The reserve fund continues to empty, and the end result is a funding model which is not sustainable in its current form. Various approaches for reducing costs and increasing revenue were discussed.

(a) Administrative overhead costs at Merit have been reduced to a bare minimum, and cannot be reduced further.

(b) The cost of funding SC, PC, MLC, etc meetings over meals might be reduced; it was noted that amongst those present there was really no problem with individuals having their meals covered by their employers.

(c) A "print sponsor" might be sought for each meeting who would contribute funding in return for logo placement on meeting badges and other printed material. Merit are leery of this kind of co-branding. Randy suggested that relying on new sponsorship models without experience of likely uptake would be unwise. There was limited enthusiasm for this idea.

(d) The "beer and gear" reception might be extended into an all-day event, allowing vendors to provide staffed booths during Monday meeting breaks as well as for the reception in the evening. Guidelines would be necessary to ensure that vendor-organised demonstrations, etc did not interfere with the programme. The goal of such a change would be to attract more sponsors per meeting, and also to obtain increased sponsorship revenue per sponsor for the increased access to NANOG participants. This would likely not be possible to try out in Toronto due to the beer'n'gear reception location being on a different floor from the rest of the meeting.

(e) The cost of sponsoring meeting breaks might be reduced in order to attract more sponsors. At recent meetings there have been few or no break sponsors, and so reducing the sponsorship fees would likely not reduce revenue, even if they were reduced substantially (e.g. from $6k to $2k per sponsor per break).

(f) Providing sponsorship packages which allow vendors to pre-pay for opportunities at several meetings might reduce the work required to find sponsors for each meeting, and also provide advantages in cash flow.

(g) Providing attendee discounts to those who are prepared to pre-pay for multiple future meetings might be useful.

(h) The attendee fees have been at their current level for some time, and increases in attendance fees in the past have been rare and modest. Current fee levels are low compared to other similar events. At past community meetings people have told us that increasing the meeting fees would present no problems for their employers, although travel policies often mean that the cost of accommodation should be maintained at its present level if at all possible. Merit indicated that their budgetary analysis shows that increasing the fee from $350 to $450 is necessary in order to put NANOG back on a sustainable footing.

The SC agreed that an increase of $100 of the meeting attendance fee from $350 to $450 was a prudent first step in improving the financial stability of NANOG, and that this would be implemented for Toronto. Joe Abley to send a note to nanog-announce which briefly describes the financial picture, and the reasons for the increase. It is possible that we can reduce the fees again in future if we are able to achieve reliable increases in sponsorship revenue.


2. Mailing List Administration

Rob Seastrom reported that there are ongoing problems with NANOG mailing list mail being bounced through various gateways. Due to the way the list is hosted along with other Merit services, it is difficult to identify precisely which subscribers are causing these kinds of problems. The mailing list admin team together with Merit staff are investigating inserting VERP into the list infrastructure in order to make it easier to identify problem subscribers.

Changes such as these would be easier to do if NANOG-specific services were isolated to their own servers, and were not hosted on shared Merit server infrastructure. Betty is supportive of this, and will follow up at Merit. It was noted that community donations of server hardware to run NANOG services would be easy to organise. Having NANOG services hosted on their own servers would make it possible to have those servers co-administered by volunteers as well as Merit staff.


3. Next Meeting

Next meeting Thu 2006-11-30 1900 Canada/Eastern. Rescheduling may be required since Philip, Randy and Steve will be in cruel and unusual timezones; details to be arranged by e-mail.

December 28, 2006: Minutes of NANOG Steering Committee Meeting

Attending:

  Joe Abley (chair)
  Betty Burke
  Steve Feldman (ex-officio, PC)
  Randy Bush
  Chris Morrow

Apologies:

  William B. Norton
  Philip Smith
  Robert Seastrom (ex-officio, MLC)

1. NANOG 39 (Toronto)
   
   Steve indicated that the programme was in good shape. The PC had a good first round of submissions, and has a conference call scheduled next week to consider the second-round submissions. The PC aims to publish a preliminary agenda by Friday 12 January.
   
   One of the submissions which was rejected in the first round triggered some private mail to Don Welch at Merit; the submitter was apparently concerned that their slides had not been reviewed sufficiently well, since the feedback included in the response from the PC suggested to the submitter that the PC had not understood the material.
   
   It was noted that feedback included in rejection notes came directly from individual PC members, and were not statements made by the PC as a whole. Most reviewers of the material in question did not include feedback to be sent to submitters.
   
   It was also noted that there is currently no appeals process for the NANOG programme, and that direct appeals to Merit's CEO which second- guess the decisions of the PC do not constitute an appropriate mechanism for triggering a review.
   
   Steve will respond to the submitter in question inviting them to try again next time, and will also invite individuals on the PC to work with the submitter to provide more directed assistance.
   
   Betty reported that registrations were steady. There are still some opportunities open for break suponsors and for the beer'n'gear; Betty has a list of potential sponsors to contact with regard to the remaining opportunities.
   
   The meeting network is in good shape. Transit circuits are expected to arrive mid-January. Research in Motion have agreed to supply a suitable router to terminate the circuits on so that they can be tested thoroughly before the Merit equipment arrives.
   
   Merit will arrive in Toronto on the afternoon of Thursday, 1 February.
   
   
2. NANOG 40 (June 2007)
   
   Solutions to the prospective host's hotel scheduling problems have not been found. Betty and Randy to involve the local community in finding a new venue.
   
   
3. NANOG 41 (October 2007)
   
   Betty confirmed that Merit has a contract from the hotel, but that it has not yet been signed. There was some doubt expressed as to whether ARIN's corresponding contract has yet been signed. Some ARIN staff are possibly unhappy about the proposed location, and if contracts have not yet been signed there may still be opportunities to move it. Betty to coordinate with ARIN next week to find out their perspective.
   
   
4. Mailing List servers
   
   Marty Hannigan has donated a server based on a spec supplied by Merit sysadmins. The goal is to have it prepped and ready for production before Toronto. This server will live at Merit, but will be used exclusively for NANOG services.
   
   

The Steering Committee email address is steering@nanog.org.


Back to the Steering Committee Activities page.