*** Quoting Felipe T. Dorado from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

 FTD>> If you happen to have a list of things your people would like t
 FTD>> of the current policy or the main points or guidelines of a new
 FTD>> most certainly would like to hear about them *_and_* take them
 FTD>> 5 or 6 Thousand SysOps can't be ignored!  :)

 CS> Same here.  I'd especially want to help remove anything that caused them
 CS> particular hardship if it could be done without causing hardship on
 CS> others.

FTD> I go along with that.

Me too!  I do not always know as much as I think and you made me think! 
Keep ¨on and forgive me if I ask some things that to you seem silly.  I'm
used to a ¨different technology base and may not know the problems of other
areas as well ¨as I though once I ask questions. Fair enough?

 CS> 2 things I'd like to see.

 CS> a) ION's publicly acknowledged as having the same rights as POTS nodes
 CS> even if they look for technical nodelist tool reasons like PVT systems at
 CS> this time.

FTD> Mmmm. Two things, no, tree:
FTD> 1 That a way is found of contacting them from a pots line and mailer w
FTD> having to embark on using foreign tecnology.
FTD> 2 That a nodelist comprises all nodes in Fido, and not several lists.
FTD> 3 That a compromise that those nodes will serve Fido routing and will
FTD> not disappear overnight without saying a word.

I do know this may be hard in Z4/5 as they have lesser IP connectivity but
was ¨not aware it would be an issue in Spain.  In other zones, we have so
many ¨'bridge nodes' that is is not an issue.  A 'bridge' if you have not
run into ¨that term is one who is both POTS and IP capable.  They may not
have any IP ¨flags at all, but they can reach the others who are ION.

There is no direct connection between POTS and IP nodes if the POTS and IP
node ¨do not share a common protocol.  Correct.  I also agree we need a
combined ¨list.  I'll add that we need one all can use.  I can accept a
tool used to ¨filter it to what a site uses or needs.

I do not know how to adapt around the 'disappearing node' but we've always had ¨that.

 CS> b) Region level voting acknowledged as valid (Method left to
 CS> region
 CS> including the right to deligate that to the RC/REC if they so desire).
 CS> Regional policies to be used and on file with their ZC.  Zc has right to
 CS> reject one they cant live with if some region tries to go too far and
 CS> writes something that cant be worked out ;-)

FTD> I am all for this one though.

Yes, the glory is it also follows human instincts as well as P4 reasonably ¨well.

FTD> instead of Fidonet _and_ use encryption of some sort.
FTD> Some may have their IP connection since the mid nineties but there are
FTD> others who do not use any network yet and it will years before they ge
FTD> a simple dial-up connection to Inet.

FTD> That inet will be included in Fido Policy as part of the tools we use?
FTD> I have no doubt about that. I don't particularly like it but that is w
FTD> it will eventually happen. I think that should be done with respect fo
FTD> the network we have today.


I agree with respect to what we have now.  We do not need to abuse one
another ¨at all or make one set feel 'lesser' than the other.  Some people
(not you) ¨seem to have a problem with this concept.


FTD> Thank you, Carol, for putting your proposals neatly and concisely.
FTD> I would like to see more like them instead of having to struggle throu
FTD> endless threads of arguments on who is the most disrespectful with the
FTD> other (reason why I don't follow certain echoes anymore).

Grin, glad to help!  I know not all, nor do I pretend to.  I however enjoy
¨learning how we each feel.
                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4