[AusNOG] List charter Vs Reporters on the list

[Mark Smith]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:40:40 +1000
Ben Cornish <benc at brennanit.com.au> wrote:

> Passing comment....
> 
> There seems to be alot of reporters on this list.
> Ive had several calls today re the optus issue email i posted.
> 

This isn't the first time. This IS the first time:


--
 5-Jan-82 03:40:43-PST,10378;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host BRL rcvd at 5-Jan-82 0340-PST
Date:      5 Jan 82 3:07:55-EST (Tue)
From:      Mike Muuss <tcp-ip at brl>
To:        list: 
Subject:   TCP-IP Digest, Vol 1 #10
Bcc:       

TCP/IP Digest             Tuesday, 5 Jan 1981      Volume 1 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
                              Administrivia
                   ComputerWorld on the TCP/IP Cutover
                   Amateur Packet Radio using InterNet
                      Overloading the Poor Dot (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From:      Mike Muuss <Mike at BRL>
Subject:   Administrivia

Folks -

        It looks like somebody on this list is feeding copies of the
        TCP/IP Digest to ComputerWorld magazine, which seems delighted
        with this newfound source of "inside" information.  While it is
        my intention that this list receive as broad a distribution as
        possible, several tightropes must be carefully traversed:

        Networking plays a vital part in the Mission of the Ballistic
        Research Laboratory (BRL), which fully supports the
        distribution of the TCP/IP Digest.  However, the ArpaNet is
        intended for U.S. Government business, and is not supposed to
        compete with commercial packet networks.  This has a rather
        limiting effect on the group of people who can freely use the
        ArpaNet.

        More importantly, though, is a question of content.  If it
        becomes known that contributions to the TCP/IP Digest will
        appear in ComputerWorld, possibly verbatim, or perhaps cast in
        the wrong light, then I suspect that there will be a marked
        decrease in the quantity of information that is offered. Few of
        us expect our net mail to wind up published in the commercial
        press, and only the brave will knowingly open themselves up to
        this kind of direct, external exposure.  And the cost?  Those
        readers who desperately need the information on what is
        happening may find their information sources again reduced to
        RFC's and official notices, carefully worded for public
        scrutiny.

        This digest was intended as an open forum?  Is a direct pipeline
to the outside world too open?  I solicit discussion on this matter.
Maybe we can reach a consensus?
                                        Happy New Year!
                                          -Mike Muuss

--

http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n10.1

The next few covers what they ended up doing about it:

http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n11.1

http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n12.1

http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n13.1

(R.I.P. Mike Muuss - first and original author of ping -
http://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/)

Regards,
Mark.