NANOG-futures

[Randy Bush]

as steve feldman keeps having to point out to bill norton,
"This discussion didn't start because we were sitting around
bored one day."  merit was approached *very* aggressively by a
member of the press.  unfortunately, this occurred just before
the meeting, and when everyone was wrapped up in the saga which
rodney sang in the opening plenary.  so, after minimal
discussion, merit took a very conservative position, for which
i for one thank them.

end of that phase, history is history.  since, as the victors,
we get to rewrite it, someone with more time than i should go
for it :-).

i have an old dear friend who happens to be a lawyer of some
standing.  i asked him about the press and photography issue at
nanog meetings.  this is my interpretation of what he said to
me a half hour ago.

  o if press is unconditionally admitted, they may write about
    and take pictures of anything they deem newsworthy and
    publish them.

  o we can probably tell the press they are not welcome to
    attend.  they are a much less 'protected class' than say
    brunettes.  but we would need community consensus to do
    this, and i estimate the chance of getting that consensus
    to be small at best.

  o given consensus, we could tell the press that they could
    attend only if they met conditions we agreed to impose.
    i do not see this as likely.  but, if someone wants to
    pursue this path, they could write up a proposal and shop
    it around the community.  given my low estimate of the
    likelihood of success, i do not have the time and energy to
    do this.  i might sign a petition; but i sign a lot of
    petitions.

  o if your image is worth money, e.g. you are a famous actor,
    you actually have some rights allowing you to protect
    yourself from others making money commercially off that
    image without your consent.  do you smell the mpa lobby?  i
    don't think this applies to anyone in our culture except
    maybe bill manning or bill norton.

again, this is my lay rephrasing of what i thought i heard a
lawyer say.  dilute appropriately.

fwiw, i do not particularly like this result.  but at least i
no longer have to pay much attention to people telling me
whether or not it is appropriate for me or the sc to research
or discuss it (yes, this was tried.  talk about censorship!).

consider not responding with your opinion of what the situation
*should* be unless either you are a lawyer, you have consulted
one and are passing along their opinion, you have some new and
absolutely brilliant idea, or you are one of our community
trolls and just need to get it out (i won't be reading your
email anyway).  this is a messy and easily muddied issue.

thanks for listening.  and sorry for this taking so long;
though three weeks ain't bad.  it was just not on the top of
anyone's stack.

randy