- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Wikstrom Telephone MICE Port Move

by Jason Hanke

Wikstrom Telephone is moving their connection from the Mankato Networks Remote Switch to the Main Switch The new port will be xe-2/0/6 on the main stack. IP information will remain the same. Welcome aboard (again)! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Richard Laager Board Seat

by Richard Laager

* This election is important for the future of MICE. Please consider your choices carefully, and please make sure to vote. If you cannot attend the meeting, I encourage you to designate a proxy, which must be done in advance. According to the bylaws, you can do this by email to the Chief Manager. I believe that is Shaun, but if you want to be safe and nobody confirms who holds that role, send your proxy to Shaun, Jay, and Reid. Obviously, you should inform the proxy, too. ** If you wish to vote for me, but cannot attend the meeting, you can designate Mike Johnston as your proxy. I assume Owen will also provide proxy instructions. At the time of the MICE UG, I will be in San Francisco at the OpenZFS Developer Summit. I may be able to attend the MICE UG remotely, but I cannot commit to that. I definitely will not be able to attend in person. At the last UG when we were scheduling this one, it seemed like there were not a lot of dates that worked for the board, especially Reid. I felt it was better to optimize for the current board, so I did not ask for a date change. I am a long-time MICE supporter. I have attended, in person, most of the UG meetings since I learned of MICE, despite the distance and sometimes the weather. I have also made a point of involving my co-workers. I contribute in other ways, including mailing list discussions, handling the routine website updates, and talking up MICE both privately and publicly (e.g. NANOG 65 Peering Personals). I secured a donation from my employer for MICE's Juniper service contract. Overall, I think MICE is headed in the right direction. My top priority is, of course, that we complete the non-profit filing in a timely fashion. Immediately after that, we need to address financial sustainability. Along the way, there are a couple items related to the participant versus member distinction: * I would like to formalize the procedure for new connections. I am not envisioning big changes. We simply need to document the procedure and be explicit about the various states and steps. Specifically, we need to implement (as the board previously agreed) a process of participants requesting membership. * In looking at the bylaws, we may need to make a small fix to address non-member participants (e.g. University of Wisconsin System). The current bylaws specify in 1.16(a) that a membership resignation results in a port disconnection. One might be able to play games by suggesting that they never accepted membership and thus did not resign, but this is hole that needs to be fixed anyway. > PVLAN service. What are your opinions on if MICE should offer it or not. I do not think we should add features speculatively. If two or more participants have concrete plans to actually use a PVLAN in short order, I have no problem with it. As a volunteer-run exchange, the participants involved bear the responsibility to engineer and implement the solution, or convince someone to do it for them. If implemented on the main switches, remote switch operators should not be compelled to (nor prohibited from) participating in PVLAN service. > Do you see any major conflicts between your other affiliations/obligations and MICE? I am interested both from the standpoint of availability, as well as from the professional interest point of view. I am a board member (immediate past president) of the Thief River Falls Rotary Club. I am a board member of Instant Messaging Freedom, the non-profit foundation which assists Adium and Pidgin. I am a developer of Pidgin. I am a member of the ZFS on Linux team. I maintain a couple quasi-abandoned open source projects: docsis & pks. I maintain gbonds's Debian packaging. I expect no professional conflicts with any of these. Time conflicts are always a concern. None of these roles are huge time commitments; the amount of time I spend on them is flexible. I have the full support of my employer for participating in MICE, so that comes out of work time. The biggest potential for conflict is obviously my employment at Wikstrom Telephone Company, a MICE member and participant. (I also vote at ARIN on their behalf.) This is the same situation as the other board members and candidates. I see no problem navigating this through disclosure and, if necessary, recusal. > Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? I am skeptical that MICE can function indefinitely on ad-hoc donations. > What changes would you suggest on the business side? Long-time members may recall I was involved in previous planning for this. Here is my current plan: Expenses First, we need to define what we need on the expense side. I believe everyone agrees we need operating funds to pay the year's bills (ARIN fees, etc.). My position is that we can accept the discounted Cologix rates as a given. That is subject to change at the expiration of our contract, of course, but that would be similar with a non-discounted contract. Opinions on the capital expenses are more varied, but I think we have a broad consensus that we will need new switches over time. My position is that, moving forward, MICE needs to be proactive, not reactive, in planning for capital expenditures. There are three reasons we need new switches: 1) Hardware failures 2) Bandwidth growth 3) New members All of these rely on estimates. Reasonable people can disagree, so we can adjust based on member consensus. The important thing is that we not lose the budget forest for the trees. We need to get started with something, and we can adjust over time. For #1, let's assume a switch needs to be replaced, on average, every 10 years. For #2, let's assume 50% annualized growth. This is the "Nielsen's Law" number. That rate is higher than what I am seeing in reports of actual national averages, but lower than my employers' actual bandwidth growth. A 50% annualized growth rate means an order of magnitude port speed increase occurs every 5 to 6 years. When it comes to planning for new switches, the particular port speed is something which will be determined at the time of purchase. That is, last year's 10G might be next year's 40G or 100G. For #3, it is very hard to predict. We cannot extrapolate from the bootstrapping days of MICE, as it is unlikely we will continue to add members at the same rate. As a starting point, I would suggest we round #2's timeframe down to 5 years and then keep a close eye on what is actually happening.Adding this all together looks like this: 1) We estimate the current replacement cost of each switches. We subtract the amount we currently have budgeted. (At the start, that's zero.) We calculate the years remaining (10 years minus how long we have owned the switch). We divide those two numbers to determine how much we need to budget per year for hardware replacement. 2) Of our fastest port type, we currently have two switches. So we need to plan to replace those with two switches of the future port speed, at some point. We take the cost of the Juniper 10G switch when we purchased it. For each 10G switch, we take that cost, subtract what we currently have budgeted (zero), and divide that by the remaining time in the upgrade cycle (5 years minus the length of time we had the switch). This gives the amount we need to budget per year for port speed growth. Adding operating costs plus the capital costs defines our annual need. This is independent of how we recover these costs. Income On the income side, there are many possible models. I start by defining goals. Note that here I am talking about various types of fees which are possible. * We recover our budgeted costs. * Members are treated equally. o If there is a member fee, all members pay it equally. * Participants are treated equally. o If there is a participant fee, all participants pay it equally. * Remote switch operators are treated equally. o If there is a remote switch operator fee, all remote switch operators pay it equally. * Port users are treated neutrally. o If there are port fees, port users pay based on their port types/counts. o I oppose giving free ports to eyeball networks. o I oppose giving free ports to content providers. o I oppose differentiating non-profit versus for-profit. o PCH is an interesting edge case, because they are providing services for the Internet itself. I could accept them as a special case, if there was broad member consensus. A better answer, though, might be for the subset of interested members to donate to PCH to cover their fees. * We should not create perverse incentives on port speeds. o For example, if a 10G port costs ten times as much as a 1G port, we could see 4x1G or even 8x1G LAGs used rather than the preferred 10G. o Likewise, but less so (as port users' equipment costs act as disincentives), setting the prices the same may result in smaller port users utilizing 10G ports when 1G ports would be more than sufficient. o To address these concerns, the previous proposal put the "relative value" at 2x. Finally, here is my proposal of which possible fees to actually charge: * There should be a member fee, which is mandatory. o This formalizes whether or not you have voting rights within MICE. o The extra step weeds out participants who have no interest in governance, which helps with quorum issues. (This mayallow us to raise the quorum requirement, which was desired by some members.) o This fee should be a token amount. o Failure to pay the member fee results in a termination of membership (and thus voting rights), but not other statuses (e.g. participant status). * There should be a participant fee. o This fee should be a small amount. o We might set the amount based on the ARIN costs. o For the initial implementation, participant fees should be "optional". We would invoice for them, but not enforce disconnections for failure to pay. + We can revisit this item once we see how things go. * There should notbe a remote switch operator fee. o I do not see any costs to recover here. * There should be port fees. o This fee should be a large amount, relative to other fees. This is how we recover the capital costs. This is also how we recover the service contract costs. o For the initial implementation, port fees should be "optional". We would invoice for them, but not enforce disconnections for failure to pay. + We can revisit this item once we see how things go. Determining the actual fees is a math exercise given the inputs above. * -- Richard

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Richard Laager

On 09/09/2016 12:14 AM, David Farmer wrote: > I added paying member dues in addition to being attached as a membership > requirement for two reasons ... I agree with this point 100%. I believe any solution should have this as a component. I am very opposed to the rest of proposal. I highly doubt that the slightly increased recognition that comes from established sponsorship levels will increase donations in any significant way. I see how donations equal priority access to ports, but I'm very concerned about the "enforcement" of that. If we have a non-trivial number of non-member participants, who gets kicked off when a member needs the last available port? Do we kick off the participant with the lowest amount of traffic, which gives big players an advantage? Do we kick off the participant who connected last, entrenching older participants? Do we make the board decide, putting them in a complicated and conflict-prone position? If we don't kick anybody off, which seems like the most likely outcome, then priority access isn't very meaningful, and thus disappears as an incentive. More importantly, the "MPR model" does nothing to address the fact that invoices and donations are handled very differently in organizations. Ironically, I don't think this even works for the University of Minnesota. I believe it was your position that you needed an invoice, as "the University doesn't give donations; it accepts them". -- Richard

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Nevin Lyne

> I very much appreciate your participation and donations and wish there was > a good way to give you and others like you a vote in the governance of the > exchange. However, requiring a network attached to the exchange for > membership provides important protections. It helps prevent hostile or > malicious takeovers. If sponsors got a vote simply by donating money, > anyone with sufficient money could essentially stuff the ballot box. Less > conspiratorial, it helps ensure that those governing the exchange, are > tightly bound to the consequences of their decisions, which is usually a > good thing from a governance perspective. Forgive me I likely read something slightly wrong, pain meds from oral surgery can do that. That does make sense. > If you have suggestions to safely allow broader participation I'd love to > hear them. For cases like mine there could be a two part process a) I am indirectly part of the network as we are connected to a network of a member, IPHouse. We have both IP space from them, and they announce our own IP ranges via BGP for us. So traffic to our web hosting clients are routed via MICE to us via IPHouse's connection to MICE. We are also a large user of CloudFlare, and an Optimized Hosting Partner of theirs supplying a second connection to some degree of how traffic routes through MICE members to our clients. Just showing a case in how we could be seen as a connected member though not currently directly through our own port on the exchange. b) For a case like this that a sponsor can show a direct routing of traffic to them through a connected member, could leave it up to a vote of existing members if that sponsor qualifies enough to be a member? Regardless of sponsorship level. Just as you pointed out that some members of the exchange may not want to do anything to exchange traffic and not deal with governance you may have cases of a company that passes traffic over the exchange because of routing through a member's port and do want to be involved with a vote as what the exchange does, does impact traffic to my network too. Again semantics at this point as this of course is just the start of how your suggestion might work as a membership model, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there, again though I am not an official member of the exchange but have been involved from early on in the exchange to some degree. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> wrote: > .... > Something like this actually I think helps equality for people/companies > like mine where we do not have a need of direct ports on the exchange, but > indirectly benefit from the exchange and would like to both support the > exchange and have some say (a vote) as a member of the exchange. Currently > I can't be a voting member of the exchange unless I have an active port, > which I don't need, but we actively donate resources and hardware to the > exchange. > > -Nevin > > -- Nevin Lyne > -- Founder & Director of Technology > -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com > -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com I added paying member dues in addition to being attached as a membership requirement for two reasons; 1. It ensures at least some minimal financial contribution by everyone participating in the governance of the exchange. 2. And, by requiring an additional action beyond simply connecting to be a member, organizations that can't or simply don't want to be part of the governance can connect and exchange traffic, without causing issues for themselves or the good governance of the exchange. If a network that never intends to participate in the governance is counted as part of the membership, that will mess with quorum for meetings. I very much appreciate your participation and donations and wish there was a good way to give you and others like you a vote in the governance of the exchange. However, requiring a network attached to the exchange for membership provides important protections. It helps prevent hostile or malicious takeovers. If sponsors got a vote simply by donating money, anyone with sufficient money could essentially stuff the ballot box. Less conspiratorial, it helps ensure that those governing the exchange, are tightly bound to the consequences of their decisions, which is usually a good thing from a governance perspective. If you have suggestions to safely allow broader participation I'd love to hear them. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > I like Mr. Farmer's proposal, it's got a little bit of an MPR feel to it, > but I won't hold it against him :) > Well close, I think it was the recent PBS pledge drive echoing in my head, at least the "sustaining member" bit. :) Actually, I think they are both apt analogies, PBS and MPR are community funded public services, that many people benefit from, but in varying and unequal ways. > So, there's Neutrality-- which I think everyone connected to MICE has a > common mindset in this department. > But many of us connect to MICE for very different reasons, so I suspect it > will never be equal. Neutral, yes. But probably never completely equal. > > ~Matthew > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Nevin Lyne

> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:08:14AM +0000, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> >> Classes create inequities. >> >> Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades >> the premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. > > I'm on team M< right now. > > And I agree, it's a great start. As long as the Sponsorship levels in no way mean you have more voting ability I am not sure how this hurts neutrality or equality. Technically we already do this to some degree on the web site by simply a) listing members and b) listing people/companies that have donated money, equipment or other services. As not all members have donated time, money or resources to the exchange. I am seeing this as: a) members of the exchange are members of the exchange and have voting rights along with a port or ports on the exchange. b) sponsors at any level, may not be exchange members with a port active (like myself) but want to support the efforts of the exchange and would be nice to have voting rights like a member of the exchange has. But I guess I fail to see how you wanting to donate $10k/yr to the exchange for some web site level of recognition vs. my $1000/yr donate all that much power to you. Might be good for some bragging rights somewhere, but again as long as the sponsorship levels in no way give more control/voting rights/etc. over the affairs of the exchange I am not seeing how sponsorship levels hurts equality. Something like this actually I think helps equality for people/companies like mine where we do not have a need of direct ports on the exchange, but indirectly benefit from the exchange and would like to both support the exchange and have some say (a vote) as a member of the exchange. Currently I can't be a voting member of the exchange unless I have an active port, which I don't need, but we actively donate resources and hardware to the exchange. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

Is it the tying of Membership with the Sponsorship levels that you object to? I could see networks just being Members or not, ditching the idea of any distinction amongst Members by their sponsorship levels. With sponsors recognized by their level of sponsorship only, completely independent of their membership status. Would that be better? Thank you for the feedback. On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > Classes create inequities. > > Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades the > premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. > > Its a great start! > > /myself > > Best, > > -M< > > > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 23:02, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM > <shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com>> wrote: > > David, > > I like the premise of this plan and it preserves the multiple > options/levels that have been consistently requested in our meetings and > discussions on this topic over the past several years. > > s > > > > *Shaun Carlson *Director of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> > wrote: > >> As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE >> but I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a >> customer of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and >> be recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually >> being a directly connected network. >> >> Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly >> and in-kind. >> >> -Nevin >> >> -- Nevin Lyne >> -- Founder & Director of Technology >> -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__arcustech.com&d=DQMFaQ&…> >> -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enginehosting.com&d=DQM…> >> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM> >> said: >> >> > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the >> exchange and >> > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the >> governance of the >> > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a >> good clear >> > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the >> ability to >> > contribute more to it to do so. >> > >> > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit >> from this >> > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even >> if that were >> > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the >> barrier of >> > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to >> the exchange >> > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants >> provide even >> > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a >> mechanism for >> > financial sustainability. >> > >> > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to >> come before >> > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input >> from others >> > who may feel differently. >> > >> > Owen >> > >> > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@ >> umn.edu>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, >> I propose >> > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both >> Membership Dues and >> > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. >> > >> > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but >> they are >> > primarily intended to illustrate the model. >> > >> > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all >> networks >> > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal >> > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or >> larger ports >> > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is >> not a >> > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in >> > governance. >> > >> > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to >> anyone >> > interested, including individual users of the Internet. >> > >> > My proposal; >> > >> > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered >> Autonomous >> > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks >> are >> > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and >> Non-Members do >> > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE >> Organization, but >> > may observe and participate in its discussions. >> > >> > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange >> switch, >> > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange >> and the MICE >> > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access >> to 10G or >> > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. >> > >> > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing >> the Exchange >> > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic >> Membership Dues >> > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling >> $1000 or more. >> > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. >> > >> > Basic Membership Dues - $100 >> > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 >> > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be >> provided through >> > in-kind services or equipment) >> > >> > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and >> > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or >> equipment. >> > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on >> the total >> > value provided annually. >> > >> > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually >> > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually >> > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually >> > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually >> > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually >> > >> > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at >> the Platinum >> > level. >> > >> > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or >> higher >> > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. >> All >> > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE >> website, with >> > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher >> Members and >> > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels >> receiving >> > more prominent placement. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > -- >> > =============================================== >> > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:E >> mail%3Afarmer(a)umn.edu> >> > Networking & Telecommunication Services >> > Office of Information Technology >> > University of Minnesota >> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> >> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> >> > =============================================== >> >> > > ------------------------------ > > 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…> > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:08:14AM +0000, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > Classes create inequities. > > Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades > the premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. I'm on team M< right now. And I agree, it's a great start. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Matthew Beckwell

I like Mr. Farmer's proposal, it's got a little bit of an MPR feel to it, but I won't hold it against him :) So, there's Neutrality-- which I think everyone connected to MICE has a common mindset in this department. But many of us connect to MICE for very different reasons, so I suspect it will never be equal. Neutral, yes. But probably never completely equal. ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > Classes create inequities. > > Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades the > premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. > > Its a great start! > > /myself > > Best, > > -M< > > > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 23:02, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM > <shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com>> wrote: > > David, > > I like the premise of this plan and it preserves the multiple > options/levels that have been consistently requested in our meetings and > discussions on this topic over the past several years. > > s > > > > *Shaun Carlson *Director of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> > wrote: > >> As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE >> but I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a >> customer of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and >> be recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually >> being a directly connected network. >> >> Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly >> and in-kind. >> >> -Nevin >> >> -- Nevin Lyne >> -- Founder & Director of Technology >> -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__arcustech.com&d=DQMFaQ&…> >> -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enginehosting.com&d=DQM…> >> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM> >> said: >> >> > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the >> exchange and >> > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the >> governance of the >> > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a >> good clear >> > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the >> ability to >> > contribute more to it to do so. >> > >> > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit >> from this >> > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even >> if that were >> > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the >> barrier of >> > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to >> the exchange >> > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants >> provide even >> > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a >> mechanism for >> > financial sustainability. >> > >> > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to >> come before >> > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input >> from others >> > who may feel differently. >> > >> > Owen >> > >> > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@ >> umn.edu>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, >> I propose >> > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both >> Membership Dues and >> > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. >> > >> > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but >> they are >> > primarily intended to illustrate the model. >> > >> > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all >> networks >> > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal >> > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or >> larger ports >> > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is >> not a >> > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in >> > governance. >> > >> > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to >> anyone >> > interested, including individual users of the Internet. >> > >> > My proposal; >> > >> > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered >> Autonomous >> > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks >> are >> > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and >> Non-Members do >> > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE >> Organization, but >> > may observe and participate in its discussions. >> > >> > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange >> switch, >> > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange >> and the MICE >> > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access >> to 10G or >> > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. >> > >> > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing >> the Exchange >> > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic >> Membership Dues >> > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling >> $1000 or more. >> > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. >> > >> > Basic Membership Dues - $100 >> > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 >> > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be >> provided through >> > in-kind services or equipment) >> > >> > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and >> > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or >> equipment. >> > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on >> the total >> > value provided annually. >> > >> > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually >> > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually >> > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually >> > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually >> > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually >> > >> > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at >> the Platinum >> > level. >> > >> > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or >> higher >> > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. >> All >> > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE >> website, with >> > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher >> Members and >> > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels >> receiving >> > more prominent placement. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > -- >> > =============================================== >> > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:E >> mail%3Afarmer(a)umn.edu> >> > Networking & Telecommunication Services >> > Office of Information Technology >> > University of Minnesota >> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> >> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> >> > =============================================== >> >> > > ------------------------------ > > 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…> > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 9, 2016