Re: UIXP update

["Daniel Stern" <dstern@uconnect.org>]

The last news that I had, based on the reports delivered at our last UIXP
meeting held in the UCC boardroom in May, was that the UCC had decided not
to subsidize the rent on the room allocated for the UIXP in Communications
House.  (This was transmitted by UCC's Patrick Mwasigwa pmwesigwa@ucc.co.ug
in an email message: 'We find it difficult to waive the rent for one year.
This would set a bad prcedent to other service providers who may not easily
appreciate the motive. We think this service should be operated as
sustainable business such that the net savings resulting from use of the
UIXP should be ploughed back to cover all the operational costs of the
UIXP.')

The three-year spreadsheet (file ixp bp.xls) presented at that meeting
showed that a monthly rent subsidy of $833 for the first twelve months was
used in calculating the UIXP's Operating Costs, (resulting in a monthly rent
of $325 instead of the normal rent of $1158).  One would therefore presume
that our members had reason to believe that such a subsidy had been
expected, but that the UCC offer had apparently been retracted a short time
before the last meeting, i.e. after the spreadsheet had been compiled.

We know from the archives that member had visited
a number of prospective venues for the UIXP.  I should think that In light
of the UCC's apparent turn about in deciding not to subsidize the rent, it
would be
in order for members to review their previous decision to choose the
Communications House site, since their decision to reject the other
prospective venues they had visited would no doubt have been influenced by
their expectation of receiving a significant rent subsidy from the UCC.

I would recommend that members appoint a team to meet again with building
owners/managers of suitable sites to negotiate terms of a lease along the
lines of the advice given by Bill Woodcock in the message below and report
back to members so that they may choose from a short list of proposed lease
agreements.

In the meantime I think it would help to have a clarification of the status
and terms of the UCC lease.

Members would also need to consider the cost of re-installation of the rack,
patch panels and cabling (at least partially paid for by the DFID grant),
and
consider the additional costs to be incurred against savings to be gained by
finding another more suitable site.  L

Let's take it one step at a time, but best to take care of this business now
before the UIXP is up and running.

Best regards, Daniel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net>
To: "Noah K Sematimba" <ksemat@psg.com>
Cc: <bgreene@cisco.com>; <pfs@cisco.com>; "Daniel Stern"
<dstern@uconnect.org>; "Badru Ntege" <ntegeb@sanyutel.com>; "Charles Musisi"
<cmusisi@yahoo.com>; "Hope Mugagga" <hopemugagga@yahoo.com>; "Ole J
Jacobsen" <ole@cisco.com>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: UIXP update


>     > ...prefer a location that is absolutely neutral.
>     > ...$200 was the absolute mimimum required to have the IX running in
>     > view especially of rent issues and such.
>
> It doesn't sound like there's any disagreement here...  Based upon the
> very limited information that I've got, it sounds like the main issue
> before you is that you thought you had a good neutral government-owned
> location to use, but then they decided to change the fee-structure for the
> space so that it no longer makes sense to use.  That would seem to pretty
> clearly indicate that you need to go back to your member-group and discuss
> alternate locations.
>
> If you look at the way other successful exchanges have worked, a good
> process might be to get a large list of locations nominated by your
> members, with only the restriction that the locations cannot be owned or
> controlled by any of them.  Then discuss that list, and narrow it down to
> perhaps six different buildings.  Approach the building owners/managers of
> these six buildings, explain the exchange to them, explain the miniscule
> impact it will have on their building support costs, explain that all you
> need is perhaps an old broom-closet adjacent to the riser on one of the
> floors, or perhaps a small room in the basement which can be converted to
> cross-connects and house the switch.  Explain that this will make their
> building much more valuable, and then ask them for a long-term lease at a
> nominal amount, for instance, $25/month for 20 years.  Several of them
> will agree with your logic, and give you lease paperwork.  Bring that back
> in front of your membership for a final decision, and sign whichever lease
> your members like best.  The government-owned facility should be treated
> no differently than the rest.  When they perceive that they're in
> competition with other facilities, they may become more flexible.  If not,
> and they've already shown themselves to be untrustworthy once, I don't see
> any pressing reason to deal with them.
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
>