- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Candidate Question

by James Renken

On Sep 7, 2016, at 15:15, Brady Kittel <bkittel(a)GMAIL.COM<mailto:bkittel@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: I agree that we should pay our fair share. Largely we just need to get a bill that we can pay with a PO and it isn't a problem. That said is they're ever a scenario that discounting port fees for an entity would have a net benefit for the exchange? The example I have in mind is PCH, whom we’re working to bring in: they’re a non-profit and will bring anycast root server instances (I believe E-root and L-root) right onto MICE. I believe we were also floating the idea of an inter-IXP connection to Winnipeg, which would be another case where I’d like to propose waiving port fees. Maybe a case-by-case basis? -- James Renken, Sr. Systems Architect ipHouse - https://www.iphouse.com/ james(a)iphouse.net<mailto:james@iphouse.net> / +1 (612) 337-6337

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:53:14PM -0500, Dan Boehlke wrote: > I like that Owen says he wants to build consensus on what to do with > the model. MICE sustainability is important. Many of us count on > it now. It's a very good thing to make it self-sustaining. I know, I preach on this too much. It's the dead horse that keeps coming back for more. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Dan Boehlke

I like that Owen says he wants to build consensus on what to do with the model. MICE sustainability is important. Many of us count on it now. -- Dan Boehlke 612-704-2890 > On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > > On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> <mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: >>> Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. >>> >>> Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? >> I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. >> >> I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. >> >> I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. >> > > Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? > > MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. > > If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Brady Kittel

I agree that we should pay our fair share. Largely we just need to get a bill that we can pay with a PO and it isn't a problem. That said is they're ever a scenario that discounting port fees for an entity would have a net benefit for the exchange? On Sep 7, 2016 3:02 PM, "Asp, David" <David.Asp(a)co.dakota.mn.us> wrote: > > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Asp, David > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:02 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question > > > > My opinion working for a county government is that every one should be > treated equally. > > > > > > *David Asp* > > *Network Collaboration Engineer* > > *Dakota County Government Center* > > *1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033* > > *Office: 651-438-4271 <651-438-4271>* > > > > > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Howard > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question > > > > > > On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. > > > > Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? > > > > I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. > > > > I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. > > > > I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. > > > > > Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? > > MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. > > If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are > free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair > share. > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Asp, David

From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Asp, David Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question My opinion working for a county government is that every one should be treated equally. David Asp Network Collaboration Engineer Dakota County Government Center 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 Office: 651-438-4271 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET><mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Asp, David

My opinion working for a county government is that very one should be treated equally. David Asp Network Collaboration Engineer Dakota County Government Center 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 Office: 651-438-4271 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET><mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:39:39PM +0000, James Renken wrote: > I???d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and > government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it > doesn???t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. They get the same benefit and should pay the same fee once fees are established. 'I am the curmudgeon' when it comes to this issue of fees! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Steve Howard

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by James Renken

On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. > > Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. -- James Renken, Sr. Systems Architect ipHouse - https://www.iphouse.com/ james(a)iphouse.net / +1 (612) 337-6337

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by DeLong, Owen

I think that the current financial model is probably sustainable with some risks. As a board member, I would look to the community to build a consensus around a choice on this matter, and, assuming that the consensus plan was fiscally sound, would favor that. However, I also have an opinion as a participant in the exchange and I will share that below: OTOH, I also think that the current financial model depends on the generosity of a few benefactors subsidizing many of the participants. That made a lot of sense when the exchange was in startup mode and its value hadn’t been fully proven yet. However, as the exchange has matured, I believe we should have a much better idea of our annual operating costs and that it would be reasonable to look at some form of annual subscription structure (whether that be port fees, membership dues, or some other form is still an open question where I remain largely agnostic) which would apportion the annual budget among the membership. I believe doing so has the following advantages: 1. Creates a more fair environment for all participants. 2. Creates a situation where each participant has financial skin in the game, so to speak. 3. Provides a more consistent and reliable funding for the exchange, no risk of what happens if several previously generous benefactors have simultaneous bad quarters/years/etc. There is, however, a different risk associated with this process. That is the risk of mission creep. We must be careful to set the fees such that we (ideally) recover our costs and build a small (one to two years) operating reserve. I’d like to see the operating reserve built up over 5 years. I think that the fee structure should be designed to recover no more than 1.2x annual operating costs and that we should not seek to use the ability to have fees as an excuse to turn the exchange into other things it was never intended to be. The SIX may well be a good model to follow as I think it is the closest existing example of what I believe MICE is and should remain with a fee structure in place. Owen On Sep 7, 2016, at 06:33 , Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net>> wrote: Question for all candidates- Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 7, 2016