CCN future, direction, objectives

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:36:53 -0400 (AST)
From: Mark Ronald Rushton <Mark@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Peter Morgan <ae112@chebucto.ns.ca>
cc: ccn-board@chebucto.ns.ca, ccn-comm@chebucto.ns.ca, ccn-ip@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <ccn-ip-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

providing text-only
Peter, thanks for the response.

A couple of quick notes on your reply:

> >Phoenix WWW-based email service, looking for the rationale, the 
> 
> I guess I'd be leary of getting too frustrated by no reply. I suspect

Actually, I'm more interested in the transparency of operation /
communication.  Guess this falls under the Comms. Cttee (_so_ nice to have
a chair in place - have I said "Welcome, Sue!" yet?
   More to the point - as someone involved at the IP Cttee level, I was
surprised to learn about the Phoenix project, by a stray email that landed
in my inbox.  Is there a process in place for informing the CCN community
about upcoming initiatives like this?

I've just peeked at a few places where one would expect info like this to
appear, and discovered:

	under CSUITE SERVICES, link 13 (cfn.announce) is empty - but as
		a newsgroup, that's to be expected.

	under CSUITE SERVICES, link 24 (WHAT'S NEW on CCN) is woefully
		outdated - looks like last update was 1995.

	and under NEWS, EVENTS, HOT TOPICS,
		link 2 (Latest News) points to the Beacon (great!)


...I don't need to have my nose in everything, but at least two of the
above links do not provide curious users with any useful information at
all.  Whooops, sorry Sue - looks like I'm generating a bunch of work for
us.

> >VDNs - A wonderful service, if we can be clear on the $$$$. 
> >$400/year for IPs?  Ridiculous!  It would make more sense to me if 
> 
> Well, Mark we're going over well worn territory here but:

Heh - I know it, Peter.  Perhaps that questions / concerns continue to be
raised indicate that (a) there has been insufficient communication
regarding the VDN (?)  or (b) there is sufficient disagreement among
persons involved as to the plan for VDNs.  Can we find a forum for
addressing concerns and resolving conflict?
 
> 2. Virtual Domain Names are a valuable commodity for organizations and
> individuals. Virtual Domains require setup and on-going maintenance by
> Chebucto. (I know no one believes me about this, but next year and the next
> year and the next year IP's of any stripe will still need support and
> help.) As well, we have to pay for the aforementioned high speed upstream
> Internet connection, to say nothing of the computers and modems. We are
> billed almost $2000/month for the access, plus another $2000+ for the 80
> odd phone lines we use -- we must therefore, at some point, collect revenue
> on a recurring basis.

Peter, this is precisely the information that has been missing.  It's my
belief that agreement and resolution can be reached once everyone has the
full story.  I had not read this before - it does clarify things somewhat.

> operating revenue. I would make an argument that they represent more than
> 1% of our costs.

I would agree, even without seeing the figures. I would suggest that the
cost estimate be balanced in our minds with the value provided by having
these IPs. A mutually beneficial relationship.

> Having said all this, if you feel that a) the scuba society would

OUCH.  Peter... it's N.S.-Cuba Assoc (NSCUBA).  We're not a bloody diving
club!  (Oh, I wish I'd been around when they named the organization...)

> substantially benefit from a VDN and b) you cannot afford it, pls make a

I've been speaking not so much as an IP more as as a CCN Editor.  While
NSCUBA would love to have a shorter URL, I'm cognizant of the challenges
faced by Chebucto.  My sense of guilt precludes going this route - I'd
like to see us pay our way (if "paying our way" won't bankrupt us!).

> The second part is the IP's themselves (185 individuals). My read is that
> there is currently not a group that truly represents there interests. Many
> IP-editors also serve as IP's. However, most IP's are not represented by this.

Agreed.  There was an IPE Committee functioning in 1996 - and the few
small meetings we had were nontheless wonderful networking opportunities.
We are currently a Community Net with little Community interaction (sorry
I missed the Bob 'n' Lori's event last month!).  Anyone out there willing
to get the IPE Cttee up and running again?
 
> wwww.chebucto.ca/sub-directory/subdirectory/organization type URL's makes
> even the most low tech person scurry for a graphical interface and a VDN.

Precisely the issue.

> >As an IPE, I feel frustrated at Chebucto's almost nonexistent public 
> >image.  

...and, yes, I plan to be involved with the Comms cttee as much as
possible.  However -- Having been a part of the Comms cttee when Joan
Waldron was the chair, I remember one frustration being that we were often
out of the loop on developments at CCN.  Hopefully the new, revitalized
Comms Cttee won't face the same difficulties.

My thanks again for the input.  We now return you to regularly unscheduled
emails.

Ciao,
Mark.

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects