awg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf
>
> Mike
>
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12
> To: Hal Murray
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet
: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship
I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal
departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others.
If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with
something, other
I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal
departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others.
If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with
something, other operators could sign on to that as well.
The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less c
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:12:34PM -0800,
Peter Eckersley wrote
a message of 86 lines which said:
> To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure
> has been fairly uncontroversial [sic and re-sic] because America
> is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral basti
(Apologies for an slightly-OT posting)
Last year, EFF organized an open letter from network engineers against
Internet censorship legislation being considered by the US Senate
(https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter). Along with other activists'
efforts, we successfully delayed that propos
5 matches
Mail list logo
