[AusNOG] Aus Industry Congratulations Email
Paul S.
contact at winterei.se
Tue Sep 6 15:58:21 EST 2016
Most email clients offer a ignore thread and ignore subthread option.
Perhaps people disgruntled by this discussion should consider using that.
On 9/6/2016 02:53 PM, Kristoffer Sheather @ CloudCentral wrote:
> What we do need is a way to opt out of particular threads though to
> save us listening to inane rubbish.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Matt Smee" <m.smee at unsw.edu.au>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:49 PM
> *To*: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> *Subject*: Re: [AusNOG] Aus Industry Congratulations Email
>
> I agree. We should be complacent on our industry colleagues rorting
> public funding. We shouldn’t question ethics and morals – just keep it
> to ourselves. Accept it. </sarcasm>
>
> You have no right to tell people that they ‘can’t discuss the topic
> unless they’re lawyers’ any more than we do to protest or question
> what people do with the funding. After all, it’s not solely a
> discussion on legality.
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Brooks
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 6 September 2016 3:31 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Aus Industry Congratulations Email
>
> FFS, are we seriously going to have all these discussions all over
> again? We covered universities, and services, and who would be
> eligible and why, way back when the DRIPS were first requested. Some
> Universities clearly think they provide services that need a DRIP,
> some clearly don't. There's no particular reason why a University
> would be exempt, if they provide eligible services.
>
> The bigger question is - why in all the seven hells does anyone think
> they have the right, the knowledge, and the legal insight to question
> whether anyone deserves or doesn't deserve anything, when ultimately
> it comes down to an internal legal opinion (*not* technical opinion)
> for every organisation as to what an organisation has to do to cover
> themselves from liability.
>
> Seriously list - unless you are actually a lawyer, qualified to give
> opinion, and expert on every word in the relevent legislation, AND you
> know all about the internals of each orghanisation including their
> internal legal advice on which they relied to prepare and submit a
> DRIP - Shut the frigging hell up and lets talk something operational.
>
>
>
>
> On 6/09/2016 3:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens 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
> <mailto:skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com> ; Web:
> eintellegonetworks.com <http://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
> <mailto:chad at cpkws.com.au>> wrote:
>
> On 9/6/2016 12:00 PM, ausnog-request at lists.ausnog.net
> <mailto: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 <http://www.cpkws.com.au>
> phone 03 9013 4853
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> AusNOG mailing list
>
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and
> content filtering.
> http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg
>
>
> Report this message as spam
> <https://console.mailguard.com.au/ras/1Pc91GAmSA/1EZY6yhpVSBX8miNXHPiLp/0.234>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160906/a9a78da0/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list