[AusNOG] Aus Industry Congratulations Email

[Cheyne Jonstone]

Whilst I think there should have been some safeguards in place in terms of
verifying the dollar value claimed (ie. the same way you would do with a
commercial loan and submit tax invoices dated within 3 months of the
claim), what I find extraordinary but true-to-form for this list is the
amount of jibber jabber regarding what *others* have done.

Nobody here knows the true cost of implementing this half-baked policy for
many of these recipients, and I think speculating and demanding answers
from people *just because they are on list* is absurd and borderline
offensive.

This wasn't a research grant so please stop comparing it to one. The
government put up a bucket of cash and said if you want it, come get it,
but these are the rules. The rules and the people who made them are to
blame, not the people who played by them and won.

Regards,

Cheyne Jonstone | VentraIP Australia
*Executive Chairman*


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens <
skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:

> Yes. I've been talking to one Uni that didn't apply. They are confused why
> the others applied as well.
>
> I think serious questions need to be asked as to why the universities
> think they are entitled or even eligible to apply - and who approved them.
>
> Question. If the result of funding is public, why aren't the applications
> that funding?  Everyone else has to publicly disclose what they do in
> relation to most government funding, so why not this?
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
> Email: skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com
>
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve ; LinkedIn: /in/skeeve
> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile
> <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Chad Kelly <chad at cpkws.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2016 12:00 PM, ausnog-request at lists.ausnog.net wrote:
>>
>>> I was just having a little look at some of the data.
>>> 50% of the total pool went to three recipients.
>>>
>>> The bottom 163 (>90%) recipients between them received 20% of the pool.
>>> 10% of the pool was divided between 137 (76%) of recipients.
>>>
>>> Without mentioning names, I raised an eyebrow to see that there were
>>> exactly two, identical value grants ($265,600 each) to two entities with
>>> remarkably similar names.
>>>
>>> This is not unusual, many businesses run several companies Micron21 as
>> an example got around $50000 in grant funding split over two separate
>> companies.
>> The one I don't understand at all is all the Universities that got
>> funding, mostly because as I understood the legislation the emails that
>> were allocated to staff and students would all be classed as the inner
>> circle, or whatever it was called.
>> In other words it would be classed as internal usage, universities are
>> not selling internet access to students.
>> The only one I could understand getting funding as an ISP in the
>> education space would be the actual ISPs that provide the carrier networks
>> for the Universities such as Aarnet being the main one.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chad Kelly
>> Manager
>> CPK Web Services
>> web www.cpkws.com.au
>> phone 03 9013 4853
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>

-- 
*The contents of this email are strictly private and confidential unless 
otherwise noted and is intended for the marked recipients only. If you are 
not a marked recipient please disregard and delete this email.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160906/33df6ea8/attachment.html>