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 <[log in to unmask]> 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
[log in to unmask]
www.neutralpath.net
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
