next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>category f Hi Peter! On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Peter Morgan wrote: > There is a long discussion to be had here, but just one quick point: > > > IP with Network Package > > - $1000 (to be negotiated depending on needs) > > - above plus 20 email addresses > > - 4 mailing lists > > - contracted support (if necessary) > > - org takes responsibility for email addresses > > >are, at most, at a 'future projection' stage. They're not even close to > >anything that the CCN could at the moment advertise, invoice for, etc. > >What is 'reasonable'? What does 'to be determined and enforced sometime in > >the future' mean? What does 'takes responsibility for Email addresses' > >actually entail? How does PPP support factor into these categories? What > >does 'contracted support' actually involve? > > David Murdoch has just such an arrangement with the Halifax Regional > Development Authority to provide just such a service -- dedicated phone > lines, numerous organizational email accounts, shared file space, etc. It > is a great example of a partnership and also of our very formidable > capabilities. This is very exciting to hear. I don't know anything at all about it or what stage it's at. Perhaps it can serve as a template for other such undertakings, to help create the structures and processes for future such endeavours. > I think the other stuff will just have to fall in to the category of "we > agree to disagree". The general points, however, are: 1) When Peter Mortimer floated this proposed IP membership structure past the IP Committee last spring there was a broad consensus that such a tiered structure was a good idea which needs to be developed. 2) There are components of this that the IP Committee could tackle. There are other components that Operations needs to look at; other aspects fall into the bailiwick of the Technical Committee; others to the Board and/or the Policy Committee. 3) A number of such components need to be in place and issues resolved before we can reasonably go public with this structure. When we opted last spring to have a business-class of IPs I developed a relatively comprehensive set of issues that needed to be tackled and a process for doing so (I'll see if I can relocate a copy of this EMail) and circulated this. The same needs to be done viz-a-viz this proposal. 4) The IP Committee continues to be as active as it ever has been. At the last meeting it discussed (amongst other things) the issue of virtual domain names. Aside from the issue of business-class IPs (which we still thought we were offering) and the what the IP Committee's previous understanding was on this proposal (that for non-business IPs we were proposing set-up charges and not annual fees) there was still the strong conviction that $400 annual fees for non-business IPs were significantly too high for our IP constituency to afford. We may not see eye-to-eye on some of these issues, nevertheless, we do need to come to a concenus position. ;-> Cheers! Chris _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html "We have ... in this country ... far too many captive editors who cannot even be heard to rattle their chains." -- Carl E. Lindstrom _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects