- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Premier Move

by Jason Hanke

Premier Communications has moved to port xe-0/0/10 of the NP remote switch. They are no longer using xe-0/0/0 on the NP remote. -- 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

Feb. 6, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Brady Kittel

I think we're on the same page here in general but what I was getting at specifically was that a quote isn't a contract and thus unless you signed an NDA on behalf of MICE (maybe you did and I missed that in the lengthy thread above?) there is no NDA. Just like I wouldn't be concerned with sharing a quote in this scenario with anyone in my own purchasing or infrastructure team for review I don't largely see a difference with MICE and coop members. I guess I would just be upfront with vendors and tell them that quotes are open for viewing by MICE membership unless it's done under some kind of RFP scenario and they can modify the wording as needed on the quote if they are concerned the pricing they are offering is better than what they might offer a commercial customer (IE: "Special discounted pricing for MICE, not representative of standard commercial discount rate" or similar). Anyway I don't see this aspect of the discussion really going anywhere useful in an email thread, and it might just be best discussed at the next meeting, but just felt obligated to point out that we need to encourage financial transparency as I've seen lack of transparency tear apart non-profits in the past and I want to see MICE continue to be successful. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 02/05/2018 03:39 PM, Brady Kittel wrote: > > Just putting the words "confidential" on a quote or document doesn't > > generate an automatic contractual NDA as much as vendors might wish it > does. > > Agreed. > > I'm not going to rehash points already made, but I do want to add that > the ambiguity can go both ways. Sometimes when you make a point of > pushing things, they end up going the opposite way you wanted. For > example, if I push back on this, we could get confirmation that it's > totally fine to share the pricing publicly. Or, we could get an explicit > requirement of a real NDA on that pricing. The latter would require > changes to our existing treasurer's reports. > > I'm not saying this is the case, because as I noted, it hasn't been > discussed at all either way with this particular vendor. So I was taking > the "let sleeping dogs lie" approach. > > -- > Richard >

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Richard Laager

On 02/05/2018 03:39 PM, Brady Kittel wrote: > Just putting the words "confidential" on a quote or document doesn't > generate an automatic contractual NDA as much as vendors might wish it does. Agreed. I'm not going to rehash points already made, but I do want to add that the ambiguity can go both ways. Sometimes when you make a point of pushing things, they end up going the opposite way you wanted. For example, if I push back on this, we could get confirmation that it's totally fine to share the pricing publicly. Or, we could get an explicit requirement of a real NDA on that pricing. The latter would require changes to our existing treasurer's reports. I'm not saying this is the case, because as I noted, it hasn't been discussed at all either way with this particular vendor. So I was taking the "let sleeping dogs lie" approach. -- Richard

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Brady Kittel

Agreed on pursuing the 3 year contract if we have the funds to sustain that option. Would also point out that I've never had to sign an NDA with Arista or any other vendor to get a quote so I think people may be assuming an implied NDA that doesn't actually exist in the case of pricing. Just putting the words "confidential" on a quote or document doesn't generate an automatic contractual NDA as much as vendors might wish it does. I'd suggest that members probably do have the right to review the pricing for the purpose of transparency but perhaps the best venue would be to only provide it on demand and just keep it on file rather than sending it to the mailing list. I worry that trying to keep financial details of the coop secret from members in any way, shape or form is a slippery slope even if it's with good intention. I'd add that the coop can certainly ask (though can't contractually hold them) that anyone that chooses to see the pricing not share it outside of voting coop members as it's in the best interest of the coop and it's current and future relationship with vendors and suppliers. I'd hope that everyone understands that pricing can vary based on the customer/sector/etc that a vendor might issue a quote to and I'd hope that Arista is offering MICE their best pricing for renewal which may also not be representative of the pricing MICE member organizations would get on a renewal (IE: I'd expect some orgs may pay more). Heck I can google for Arista or any other quote given that any government and many non-profits are required to make all RFP proceedings public along with unsealing quotes after bids are closed. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > I felt as a spending of a LARGE amount of our cash reserves, it should be > something the general membership had the ability to comment about...there > wasn't all that much argument about if we SHOULD do it, just that as a > coop, we need to report back to membership of what we are doing with the $. > > Reid > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > >> On 02/05/2018 11:08 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: >> > I think we’re mostly on the same page. >> >> I think so too. >> >> Bringing this to the members for input may have given the impression >> that a problem-needing-solving exists and the board was asking for >> suggestions on solutions. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem >> here. I think this is a no-brainer. >> >> In terms of the function should_we_buy_3_years(...), the members are >> being given an opportunity to suggest the algorithm inside the function >> or at least its parameters, not to execute the function and provide the >> boolean return value. >> >> Here's my thinking: >> >> I don't see us needing to buy a new switch this year or next >> year, so this decision doesn't affect that either way. >> >> We will probably need to add a line card eventually. That is hopefully a >> 100G line card, to avoid filling the chassis with another 10G line card. >> At a quick glance, the 10G has ~35 ports available and the 100G has ~30 >> ports available. Upgrades to 100G will free up 10G ports. We can also >> use breakouts to get more 10G ports out of 100G ports if absolutely >> necessary. It looks to me like we should be okay on this front. In the >> unlikely event we are not, we will end the year with enough cash to buy >> another line card anyway, and if we fill up on ports, that means we also >> brought in a bunch of additional money in port fees. >> >> Our only large recurring expense is this contract. The minimum cash >> balance with this plan is more than 10x other expenses and 5-10x the >> minimum cash balance of last year. That seems fine, and is only >> temporary until all port fees are paid, at which point it is even higher. >> >> One of the Juniper switches or modules dying is a risk, but those are >> significantly cheaper. We also already have two switches, and all the >> participants fit on one, except for the 4 fiber, who could be moved to >> the Arista in a pinch. >> >> The interest we'd earn on the cash is zero or nearly zero, so it takes >> very little extra discount on 3-years to be acceptable on that basis. >> >> The ratio between the 1 and 3 year options is in line with what I'd >> expect from my previous purchases of support contracts from various >> vendors. It is in line with a suggested ratio I was provided off-list by >> another member. >> >> Do you see any flaws in the above or have any additional factors I've >> missed? >> >> -- >> Richard >> >> > > > -- > Reid Fishler > Director > Hurricane Electric > +1-510-580-4178 <(510)%20580-4178> > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by DeLong, Owen

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 12:31 , Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > On 02/05/2018 11:08 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: >> I think we’re mostly on the same page. > > I think so too. > > Bringing this to the members for input may have given the impression > that a problem-needing-solving exists and the board was asking for > suggestions on solutions. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem > here. I think this is a no-brainer. Agreed. > In terms of the function should_we_buy_3_years(...), the members are > being given an opportunity to suggest the algorithm inside the function > or at least its parameters, not to execute the function and provide the > boolean return value. OK > Here's my thinking: > > I don't see us needing to buy a new switch this year or next > year, so this decision doesn't affect that either way. Agreed. > We will probably need to add a line card eventually. That is hopefully a > 100G line card, to avoid filling the chassis with another 10G line card. > At a quick glance, the 10G has ~35 ports available and the 100G has ~30 > ports available. Upgrades to 100G will free up 10G ports. We can also > use breakouts to get more 10G ports out of 100G ports if absolutely > necessary. It looks to me like we should be okay on this front. In the > unlikely event we are not, we will end the year with enough cash to buy > another line card anyway, and if we fill up on ports, that means we also > brought in a bunch of additional money in port fees. Yep. > Our only large recurring expense is this contract. The minimum cash > balance with this plan is more than 10x other expenses and 5-10x the > minimum cash balance of last year. That seems fine, and is only > temporary until all port fees are paid, at which point it is even higher. == no brainer as far as I can see. > One of the Juniper switches or modules dying is a risk, but those are > significantly cheaper. We also already have two switches, and all the > participants fit on one, except for the 4 fiber, who could be moved to > the Arista in a pinch. In an emergency, the Junipers are also quite cheap on the refurb market (I picked up a bunch of EX4200-48P for $259@ recently). > The interest we'd earn on the cash is zero or nearly zero, so it takes > very little extra discount on 3-years to be acceptable on that basis. Yes. > The ratio between the 1 and 3 year options is in line with what I'd > expect from my previous purchases of support contracts from various > vendors. It is in line with a suggested ratio I was provided off-list by > another member. OK > Do you see any flaws in the above or have any additional factors I've > missed? Nope. I never meant to imply I was opposed to the idea of doing the 3-year contract, especially if there’s no cost to splitting the payments as mentioned. I would, however, like to see us consider providing mechanisms to provide greater transparency to members under NDA as a general function of the organization. While this event may not make it necessary, I think having that facility is generally better than not having it, so I took this opportunity to push in that direction. Owen

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Reid Fishler

I felt as a spending of a LARGE amount of our cash reserves, it should be something the general membership had the ability to comment about...there wasn't all that much argument about if we SHOULD do it, just that as a coop, we need to report back to membership of what we are doing with the $. Reid On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 02/05/2018 11:08 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: > > I think we’re mostly on the same page. > > I think so too. > > Bringing this to the members for input may have given the impression > that a problem-needing-solving exists and the board was asking for > suggestions on solutions. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem > here. I think this is a no-brainer. > > In terms of the function should_we_buy_3_years(...), the members are > being given an opportunity to suggest the algorithm inside the function > or at least its parameters, not to execute the function and provide the > boolean return value. > > Here's my thinking: > > I don't see us needing to buy a new switch this year or next > year, so this decision doesn't affect that either way. > > We will probably need to add a line card eventually. That is hopefully a > 100G line card, to avoid filling the chassis with another 10G line card. > At a quick glance, the 10G has ~35 ports available and the 100G has ~30 > ports available. Upgrades to 100G will free up 10G ports. We can also > use breakouts to get more 10G ports out of 100G ports if absolutely > necessary. It looks to me like we should be okay on this front. In the > unlikely event we are not, we will end the year with enough cash to buy > another line card anyway, and if we fill up on ports, that means we also > brought in a bunch of additional money in port fees. > > Our only large recurring expense is this contract. The minimum cash > balance with this plan is more than 10x other expenses and 5-10x the > minimum cash balance of last year. That seems fine, and is only > temporary until all port fees are paid, at which point it is even higher. > > One of the Juniper switches or modules dying is a risk, but those are > significantly cheaper. We also already have two switches, and all the > participants fit on one, except for the 4 fiber, who could be moved to > the Arista in a pinch. > > The interest we'd earn on the cash is zero or nearly zero, so it takes > very little extra discount on 3-years to be acceptable on that basis. > > The ratio between the 1 and 3 year options is in line with what I'd > expect from my previous purchases of support contracts from various > vendors. It is in line with a suggested ratio I was provided off-list by > another member. > > Do you see any flaws in the above or have any additional factors I've > missed? > > -- > Richard > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Richard Laager

On 02/05/2018 11:08 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: > I think we’re mostly on the same page. I think so too. Bringing this to the members for input may have given the impression that a problem-needing-solving exists and the board was asking for suggestions on solutions. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem here. I think this is a no-brainer. In terms of the function should_we_buy_3_years(...), the members are being given an opportunity to suggest the algorithm inside the function or at least its parameters, not to execute the function and provide the boolean return value. Here's my thinking: I don't see us needing to buy a new switch this year or next year, so this decision doesn't affect that either way. We will probably need to add a line card eventually. That is hopefully a 100G line card, to avoid filling the chassis with another 10G line card. At a quick glance, the 10G has ~35 ports available and the 100G has ~30 ports available. Upgrades to 100G will free up 10G ports. We can also use breakouts to get more 10G ports out of 100G ports if absolutely necessary. It looks to me like we should be okay on this front. In the unlikely event we are not, we will end the year with enough cash to buy another line card anyway, and if we fill up on ports, that means we also brought in a bunch of additional money in port fees. Our only large recurring expense is this contract. The minimum cash balance with this plan is more than 10x other expenses and 5-10x the minimum cash balance of last year. That seems fine, and is only temporary until all port fees are paid, at which point it is even higher. One of the Juniper switches or modules dying is a risk, but those are significantly cheaper. We also already have two switches, and all the participants fit on one, except for the 4 fiber, who could be moved to the Arista in a pinch. The interest we'd earn on the cash is zero or nearly zero, so it takes very little extra discount on 3-years to be acceptable on that basis. The ratio between the 1 and 3 year options is in line with what I'd expect from my previous purchases of support contracts from various vendors. It is in line with a suggested ratio I was provided off-list by another member. Do you see any flaws in the above or have any additional factors I've missed? -- Richard

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Justin Krejci

Count this as an informal YES vote to approve the board to take whatever actions they feel best for MICE on this particular matter. I like the idea of going with the 3 year term with Arista allowing the fees to be split. I expect sufficient port fees should be able to be collected in time. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of DeLong, Owen <00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 11:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Arista Support Contract > On Feb 2, 2018, at 14:25 , Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > On 02/02/2018 09:20 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: >> However, disclosure to the membership is not disclosure to the public. It is >> disclosure to the “owners” of the business > > The members are absolutely the owners of MICE. > > In general, I think that disclosure to the member-owners is > substantially similar to disclosure to the public, as the member-owners > are not held to any binding NDA. While that’s currently true, it certainly doesn’t need to remain true. Heck, if you’re that concerned about it, you could even ask members that want to know the details to sign an event specific NDA, or, you could ask members that want additional information available to sign a generic NDA. We could create a second mailing list which only contains members who signed if that’s an issue. > >> who by the very nature of this discussion> are obviously decision makers in the process. > > This thread is an opportunity for the members to provide input to the > board. The board is the decision maker. This is hair splitting and the point is that we’re being asked to provide input/contribute to the decision without complete information. >> It is pretty normal to disclose quote details to the decision makers. > > Agreed. As I noted, the board is fully informed of the pricing. The board is the duly elected representatives of the owners who are the ultimate decision makers in this context. There are many ways we can split hairs here, but this won’t likely be the only time we face a similar situation in the future of MICE. >> Is there a MICE-MEMBERS list that isn’t open to the public? > > No. We can certainly discuss that separately. Sure. I’d say it’s probably a good idea. >> certainly disclosure >> to individual members that request the data (consider this such a request from Akamai) >> is entirely appropriate. > The authority of the owners is as a collective, not individually. An > individual member-owner of a coop can request anything they want, but > that does not obligate the coop to provide that information. Buying a > telephone line from a mutual telephone company makes you a member-owner, > but does not give a member-owner the authority to compel production of > the details of pricing on their telephone switch support contract. Nor > does buying electricity from an electric coop give a member-owner the > authority to unilaterally compel release of business records relating to > energy purchase agreements, even though such details are absolutely > critical to the long-term financial viability of the business. Fair enough. Should we hold a vote of the membership on whether the pricing information should be provided to the members as part of this process. > This is not limited to coops, either. If I purchase a share of Cisco, > Akamai, or any other publicly traded company, that makes me an owner, > but I cannot individually compel the company to provide me confidential > business records. It depends on how many shares you purchase. IIRC, the standard is something like 1% before you are able to compel an agenda item on the AGM, for example. > I think that MICE as a business has a legitimate need for non-disclosure > of certain details. For example, if the owners require that pricing > details on our purchases is made public, it is reasonable to fear that > vendors may give MICE smaller discounts. For another example, if the > owners require that port traffic numbers are made public, we may lose > members (e.g. Akamai) who wish their port traffic numbers to be > confidential, even from the other member-owners. Sure, there are always tradeoffs. However, note that I’m not asking that the pricing details be made public. I expressed a willingness to sign an appropriate NDA and general agreement not to further disclose the information. As such, I do not agree that what is being requested is general disclosure to the public. > This isn't to say that the board or management can do whatever they want > and keep the owners in the dark. Obviously, the company's management and > board need to provide various reports on the company's activities. I think we’re mostly on the same page. I didn’t expect this to be such a contentious matter. Owen

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by DeLong, Owen

> On Feb 2, 2018, at 14:25 , Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > On 02/02/2018 09:20 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: >> However, disclosure to the membership is not disclosure to the public. It is >> disclosure to the “owners” of the business > > The members are absolutely the owners of MICE. > > In general, I think that disclosure to the member-owners is > substantially similar to disclosure to the public, as the member-owners > are not held to any binding NDA. While that’s currently true, it certainly doesn’t need to remain true. Heck, if you’re that concerned about it, you could even ask members that want to know the details to sign an event specific NDA, or, you could ask members that want additional information available to sign a generic NDA. We could create a second mailing list which only contains members who signed if that’s an issue. > >> who by the very nature of this discussion> are obviously decision makers in the process. > > This thread is an opportunity for the members to provide input to the > board. The board is the decision maker. This is hair splitting and the point is that we’re being asked to provide input/contribute to the decision without complete information. >> It is pretty normal to disclose quote details to the decision makers. > > Agreed. As I noted, the board is fully informed of the pricing. The board is the duly elected representatives of the owners who are the ultimate decision makers in this context. There are many ways we can split hairs here, but this won’t likely be the only time we face a similar situation in the future of MICE. >> Is there a MICE-MEMBERS list that isn’t open to the public? > > No. We can certainly discuss that separately. Sure. I’d say it’s probably a good idea. >> certainly disclosure >> to individual members that request the data (consider this such a request from Akamai) >> is entirely appropriate. > The authority of the owners is as a collective, not individually. An > individual member-owner of a coop can request anything they want, but > that does not obligate the coop to provide that information. Buying a > telephone line from a mutual telephone company makes you a member-owner, > but does not give a member-owner the authority to compel production of > the details of pricing on their telephone switch support contract. Nor > does buying electricity from an electric coop give a member-owner the > authority to unilaterally compel release of business records relating to > energy purchase agreements, even though such details are absolutely > critical to the long-term financial viability of the business. Fair enough. Should we hold a vote of the membership on whether the pricing information should be provided to the members as part of this process. > This is not limited to coops, either. If I purchase a share of Cisco, > Akamai, or any other publicly traded company, that makes me an owner, > but I cannot individually compel the company to provide me confidential > business records. It depends on how many shares you purchase. IIRC, the standard is something like 1% before you are able to compel an agenda item on the AGM, for example. > I think that MICE as a business has a legitimate need for non-disclosure > of certain details. For example, if the owners require that pricing > details on our purchases is made public, it is reasonable to fear that > vendors may give MICE smaller discounts. For another example, if the > owners require that port traffic numbers are made public, we may lose > members (e.g. Akamai) who wish their port traffic numbers to be > confidential, even from the other member-owners. Sure, there are always tradeoffs. However, note that I’m not asking that the pricing details be made public. I expressed a willingness to sign an appropriate NDA and general agreement not to further disclose the information. As such, I do not agree that what is being requested is general disclosure to the public. > This isn't to say that the board or management can do whatever they want > and keep the owners in the dark. Obviously, the company's management and > board need to provide various reports on the company's activities. I think we’re mostly on the same page. I didn’t expect this to be such a contentious matter. Owen

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Steve Howard

Feb. 5, 2018