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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
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@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@neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=DQ...> ________________________________ 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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=K43ikdHN-u67C7QitEMBfP0jP8tVCJGImZFYyJGJ84E&s=i6kRx5zyRem7fvyguAR0Bri0HCaa82ABTLRKS0cAA3Y&e=>
On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <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. -- James Renken, Sr. Systems Architect ipHouse - https://www.iphouse.com/ james@iphouse.net / +1 (612) 337-6337
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@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@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
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@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@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@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
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@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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Howard *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM *To:* 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@NEUTRALPATH.NET> <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
------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Sep 7, 2016, at 15:15, Brady Kittel <bkittel@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@iphouse.net<mailto:james@iphouse.net> / +1 (612) 337-6337
On Sep 7, 2016, at 16:16, Brady Kittel <bkittel@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? Yes. Ex: Content providers that otherwise a) serve you all "free" over transit facing you as downstream customer, b) serving from other indirect but cheaper paths which both could result in the IX being a thin business case for a variety of reasons. You pay $2 per mb/s transit You pay $.09 net for well utilized exchange port If you had 1000 mb/s to %CDN over transit And you reduce that to 250 mbs with 750 mb/s here And 10 members do that Its quite the economic impact. Not to mention performance boost and leveler of playing field. Moral of the story? Keep your options open and operate as a business. Mutual benefit. Best, Martin On Sep 7, 2016 3:02 PM, "Asp, David" <David.Asp@co.dakota.mn.us<mailto:David.Asp@co.dakota.mn.us>> wrote: From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Asp, David Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@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<tel: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@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@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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=elKRiFj0-4mv1tp5cQEBRVZQxYKti_agXcv86Ir3O-k&s=26YInOhW_2DNhXGBITxH2E7s4htp6BeMWYipnppq2Do&e=> ________________________________ 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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=elKRiFj0-4mv1tp5cQEBRVZQxYKti_agXcv86Ir3O-k&s=26YInOhW_2DNhXGBITxH2E7s4htp6BeMWYipnppq2Do&e=> ________________________________ 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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=elKRiFj0-4mv1tp5cQEBRVZQxYKti_agXcv86Ir3O-k&s=26YInOhW_2DNhXGBITxH2E7s4htp6BeMWYipnppq2Do&e=> ________________________________ 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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=elKRiFj0-4mv1tp5cQEBRVZQxYKti_agXcv86Ir3O-k&s=26YInOhW_2DNhXGBITxH2E7s4htp6BeMWYipnppq2Do&e=>
Just to add my two cents. When I start to go down someone else's rabbit hole of thought about value, and peering, this is what I come back to. I feel that everyone's traffic should be valued equally. My 1 Meg should be of no different value than someone else's No traffic direction should be more important than another. Remember the most common methods of communication on this exchange are a 2 way conversation. A server typically does not send traffic unless a client requests it. I want everyone to pay a fair price for what they are getting. This also discourages wasting of resources since it makes it much less likely to go for a 10G port out of convenience when peak traffic will be around 100M, and 1G port is much more affordable, and a better fit. Almost no one expects to get anything for free, that goes beyond the realm of nonprofit, and into charity. If you agree with these or not, you can look at the opposite to see what happens. Carriers that value their bandwidth different than others, typically do not peer on exchanges like MICE. They like to make money on both ends of the pipe, which usually leads to private peering disputes/de-peering, and allowing links to saturate in an attempt to prove a point. We all know who these carriers are, and their mindset does not match what I believe a cooperative exchange is all about. I have made a conscious effort to limit how much transit I buy from companies like these, and when the sales people call, my answer is usually along the lines of talk to me when you change your peering policies. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
I agree with a coop exchange, all members are equal. As I have stated before, I am in favor of a billed amount thats small, per member, but that we do NOT turn members off for non-payment. However we need to get the 501c status settled first, which is happening. Reid On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Just to add my two cents. When I start to go down someone else's rabbit hole of thought about value, and peering, this is what I come back to.
I feel that everyone's traffic should be valued equally. My 1 Meg should be of no different value than someone else's No traffic direction should be more important than another. Remember the most common methods of communication on this exchange are a 2 way conversation. A server typically does not send traffic unless a client requests it. I want everyone to pay a fair price for what they are getting. This also discourages wasting of resources since it makes it much less likely to go for a 10G port out of convenience when peak traffic will be around 100M, and 1G port is much more affordable, and a better fit. Almost no one expects to get anything for free, that goes beyond the realm of nonprofit, and into charity.
If you agree with these or not, you can look at the opposite to see what happens. Carriers that value their bandwidth different than others, typically do not peer on exchanges like MICE. They like to make money on both ends of the pipe, which usually leads to private peering disputes/de-peering, and allowing links to saturate in an attempt to prove a point. We all know who these carriers are, and their mindset does not match what I believe a cooperative exchange is all about. I have made a conscious effort to limit how much transit I buy from companies like these, and when the sales people call, my answer is usually along the lines of talk to me when you change your peering policies.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
-- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178
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@paulbunyan.net> wrote:
On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote:
On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke@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>
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@Geeks.ORG
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@Geeks.ORG
participants (11)
-
Asp, David -
Brady Kittel -
Dan Boehlke -
DeLong, Owen -
Hannigan, Martin -
James Renken -
Jason Hanke -
Jeremy Lumby -
Mike Horwath -
Reid Fishler -
Steve Howard