On 5/6/22 13:02, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
>
> I wanted to see where this ended up. The public discussion has been
> open for a very long time. I would assume anyone who was going to
> chime in by now would have.
>
Right. The consensus seems to be that this is not ministerial; the board
should exercise discretion. As far as the particular criteria, the
public comment didn't seem to generate a lot of detail there.
> What has the board decided on?
>
In terms of remote switches generally, I modified the website a bit
after the board's last discussion:
-
The remote switch operator will provide a technical proposal to the
board.
+The remote switch operator will provide a proposal to the board
addressing both technical and business details. Switches dedicated to
MICE are quasi-required. Proposals should address expected
participation. For example, does the operator have firm commitments from
e.g. 5 participants?
As you can see, this is still relatively "squishy". We strengthened the
dedicated switch thing, but it's hard to actually say it's "required" if
we're still theoretically willing to make exceptions. There's also the
bit about addressing whether they have participants lined up.
The approval is still subject to board approval, and it's still
subjective. Having 5 participants lined up does not guarantee approval,
and having less than 5 does not guarantee rejection.
As far as the NOCIX proposal specifically, we tabled that at the last
meeting and asked for more information. We have that now, so we can pick
this back up again for a decision.
--
Richard