All, I would invite you to review the attached documents for any concerns or potential changes. Please note one suggested change annotated in red (if you have tracking turned on). If you have any concerns or changes, please send them to the list for comment and review in the near future. Mike, Reid and I will be meeting on the 8th to go over a few things and set the dates for a couple of special meetings to provide an opportunity for comment and review in an immediate forum as well. We intend, at this time, to hold those special meetings via webex and to have the vote following those meetings. Thank you for your time in working through this process! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson@arvig.com
I would still like to see operators of remote switches (e.g. Mankato Networks) be allowed to be members. PROPOSAL 1A: In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; or (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. PROPOSAL 1B: [ If we feel it is important to allow for Cologix (and similar companies in the future) to be members, then... ] In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections; or (iii) an operator of a colocation data center in which the Company's switches are located. I'd like to see this sentence change: CURRENT: A member may be elected or appointed to membership by the Board. PROPOSAL 2A: A member may be elected or appointed to membership. PROPOSAL 2B: A member may be elected to membership by the members or appointed to membership by the Board. -- Richard
Richard, I would suggest an amendment to your 1A and 1B proposals section (ii) changed from an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. to an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections with at least one active member connection Depending on how your legalese translates, this could cover a fiber provider not otherwise associated with the exchange, eg a provider who leases wave service or dark fiber to connect the 511 fabric to a remote colo switch. With proposal 1A you could have both the switch operator and the fiber owner as members. With proposal 1B you could have the switch operator (unless it's an official MICE switch), the fiber owner, and the colo facility all of which could be separate companies. Also, are we afraid of using the term "switch" instead of the generic term "equipment?" Are there situations where there is member connectivity that does not involve the use of a switch specifically? Are just preparing in case ATM makes a move to over? 53 bytes FTW! ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Richard Laager [rlaager@WIKTEL.COM] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:13 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Governance Documents I would still like to see operators of remote switches (e.g. Mankato Networks) be allowed to be members. PROPOSAL 1A: In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; or (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. PROPOSAL 1B: [ If we feel it is important to allow for Cologix (and similar companies in the future) to be members, then... ] In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections; or (iii) an operator of a colocation data center in which the Company's switches are located. I'd like to see this sentence change: CURRENT: A member may be elected or appointed to membership by the Board. PROPOSAL 2A: A member may be elected or appointed to membership. PROPOSAL 2B: A member may be elected to membership by the members or appointed to membership by the Board. -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Note that this about who can be a member, not who is a member. There's the separate step of electing or appointing. On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:40 +0000, Justin Krejci wrote:
I would suggest an amendment to your 1A and 1B proposals section (ii) changed from an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. to an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections with at least one active member connection
I considered this. I originally went so far as to write "two or more". But in the end, I took it out as I don't think this matters. The Board shouldn't approve a switch that's not going to have any members. If they do and it turns out nobody connects, they can just de-approve it after a while. Also, they can hold up approving the switch operator's membership (separate from "approving the switch") until such time as there are connections behind the switch. If we were to adopt your proposal, I'd like to see it amended by striking the word "member". We should not assume that all connected networks are necessarily members.
Depending on how your legalese translates, this could cover a fiber provider not otherwise associated with the exchange, eg a provider who leases wave service or dark fiber to connect the 511 fabric to a remote colo switch. With proposal 1A you could have both the switch operator and the fiber owner as members. With proposal 1B you could have the switch operator (unless it's an official MICE switch), the fiber owner, and the colo facility all of which could be separate companies.
I considered this possibility. But, even if the fiber owner tries to claim they're eligible for membership, the Board/members need not appoint/elect them.
Also, are we afraid of using the term "switch" instead of the generic term "equipment?" Are there situations where there is member connectivity that does not involve the use of a switch specifically? Are just preparing in case ATM makes a move to over? 53 bytes FTW!
I believe CNS still connects remote participants. (Halstad Telphone Company is the example now. Wikstrom Telephone Company was connected this way in the past.) This is done by extending the MICE VLAN through the CNS network out to the remote participants. It is not the case (at least it wasn't for us) that the remote participants have purchased a layer 2 circuit to 511 that they can cross-connect to arbitrary destinations. So it's not that they have a presence in 511 and are connected to a single, identifiable "remote switch". Granted, CNS is directly connected, and also runs an identifiable remote switch, so this is moot for them. And it may not be likely to occur with another network. But, for another example that might be more likely.... Imagine a carrier neutral data center operator carries the MICE VLAN through their switching fabric, whether that's in one building or more than one around the metro area. They might very well not run an IP network that connects to MICE. -- Richard
Also, are we afraid of using the term "switch" instead of the generic term "equipment?" Are there situations where there is member connectivity that does not involve the use of a switch specifically? Are just preparing in case ATM makes a move to over? 53 bytes FTW!
I could see someone potentially provide layer 1 type equipment (xWDM) to provide an extension. I don't really understand the use case of doing something remote with no attached members other than someone builds a remote and then hopes that someone connects in the future. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
participants (4)
-
Jason Hanke -
Justin Krejci -
Richard Laager -
Shaun Carlson