next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Greetings all, On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Peter Morgan wrote: > I am widening a discussion taking place about IP fees so as to make sure we > are all clear about what has and has not been agreed to. Good point. > Chris, > > The Board has passed a fee structure for IP's. The fee structure is to be > implemented in a manner respectful of our many loyal IP's (and even the un > loyal ones). I have summarized it below. Executive Summary: There are now > annual fees for being an IP for any services above and beyond the basic IP > package. > > If you have an objection to this structure, please feel free to raise it > with Michael Colbourne before Thursday evening and he can put it on the > Board agenda. (I will be away and he is vice-chair). I would be happy to > discuss this with you in more detail when I am back from NB (next Friday.) > > For the record, in summary, the Board adopted the following: > > Basic IP -- contribution at level affordable to org. Includes > Chebucto.ns.ca/~education/org type URL, web space, mailing lists, email > address for an individual, etc. Web space limit, to be enforced sometime in > the future of 25 mb > > IP Member -- annual cost $200, above (mail lists, web space, etc) with no > space limit > > IP/Individual Virtual Domain -- annual cost $400, above with virtual domain > and organizational email > > IP Org package -- annual cost $600, 10 email addresses, contracted support, > org takes responsibility for all usage > > IP Network package -- annual cost $1000: 20 email addresses, etc > > PPP for all IP's paying more than $200, separate phone line. > > I am summarizing, but annual is mentioned at each level (5 separate times) > > If some other version has been communicated (in the Beacon, past practise) > we will need to explain to any new inquires that a printed error occurred > and that the correct fee is an annual fee. For people who currently have > VDN's I agree we should continue to offer them whatever services they have > and actively encourage them to pay the fees required of new IP subscribers. > > Implementation of the new fees was to be addressed by Jack and a couple of > other committee members. But these are the parameters the Board has > established. The Board's will be done. ;-> However ... Perhaps I was opaque when the discussion on these fee structures was taking place in the IP Committee and at the Board, however, I it was always my understanding that the IP/Individual Virtual Domain tier being proposed was that of the existing tier, which charged the $400 fee as a one-time _set-up_ charge. In any event, for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask whether this classification now replaces the previously distinction/tier of business/non-business IP which we had established earlier this year, or do we still have a business category of IP? To recapitulate, earlier this year we established a 'business-IP' tier, having the same benefits as a IP/Individual Virtual Domain under this structure, however with an _annual_ fee of $500 (at that time to distinguish it from the one-time $400 non-commercial IP). Does this category still exist or have we harmonized everything under the present system (business & non-business IP alike)? If not, then is there a separate business tier with equivalent (but perhaps higher?) costs for IP Org package & IP Network package applicable to business IP's? Let me suggest that whatever scheme the Board finally decides upon, it should carefully delineate terms, costs, eligibility and conditions for these and then post them prominently somewhere on the system to where we (IP people) can refer inquiries. I feel very uncomfortable fielding inquiries on this score when there is no canonical set of information I can refer people to. My personal view (and I will happily be proven wrong on this :-> ) is that a $400 annual fee will prove prohibitively expensive to the vast majority of non-business IPs. Now one could argue: fine, let only those who can afford such a service have it. In this case some, like SCETTNS or The Picaro (which have recently gone through the VDN procedure) would probably simply elect not to have a VDN and that would be that. Others, like the Canadian Ski Patrol (which had already registered their VDN and simply wished to move the site to a new server) or Heart Health Nova Scotia (which needed a VDN but could certainly not afford an annual fee of $400) would not have chosen the CCN at all (Heart Health Nova Scotia can mount a site on a Dalhousie server for free). The NDP caucus may have no problem at all in paying an annual fee of this scale. I should point out that we are constantly losing some of our more high-profile IPs to services which don't charge their IPs anything -- en contairie they *pay* their IPs to be on their site. We have lost Neptune Theatre, Symphony Nova Scotia and (most recently) Eastern Front Theatre (all high-profile cultural IPs) all to Sympatico which contributes money to these organizations and gives them free websites, multiple user accounts, unlimited server space and even pays their own staff to design websites for them! We trail significantly behind this level of service and a $400 annual VDN fee will be a definite non-starter for such groups. I don't know the circumstances of the recent decision of the Discovery Center to migrate from the CCN, however, I would not at all be surprised to discover (no pun intended ;-> ) that Istar offered them a deal they couldn't refuse. Ednet (which offers all sorts of free services) constantly siphons off IPs which might otherwise be on the CCN. Pier 21 went there and almost all of the school IPs, a number of which had sites on the CCN at one time, have all gone there In my view the Board should carefully weigh all of these factors. Revenue generation is certainly important, however, we have to be cogniscent of the circumstances/desires/means of our IPs and and also of the Internet environment we are living/working in. Cheers, Chris > At 09:41 AM 02/10/98 Friday, Christopher Majka wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, David Murdoch wrote: > > > >> My suggestion on this whole matter is to say that there is a one time fee > >> of $400 but that to support our ongoing operations we would expect the IP > >> to provide additional annual support in subsequent years - the level of > >> which the Board can decide or perhaps it has. In other words, an upfront > >> fee of $400 and then - to maintain the status quo - an annual fee. > >> > >> This would not be a major departure from what has been promised and what > >> already exists regarding IP contributions. The facts say we need more > >> contributions from IPs and it's coming anyway - leaning on them for more > >> money. > > > >I don't think there is any problem with actively encouraging IPs - with > >VDN's & n