ENG N-Document-ID: IN-019-001

-- Übernommen & Überarbeitet aus der früheren Webseite. - Internethistorie in Deutschland --

Dokument  
Individual Network e. V.  
IN-Document-ID: IN-019-001  
 

The IN-Meeting – the report 

As early as December 91, in the IN mailing list and at the Chaos Communication Congress

in Hamburg, the problems with the per capita fee (DM 5) at EUnet and various IN structures had already come to light. For this reason, attempts were made in the first half of the year to obtain offers from other service providers.

These were available at the beginning of June. For cost reasons, it made sense to make a decision by July 1, 1992, so an IN working meeting was scheduled at short notice in Oldenburg, which was also attended by the representatives of 15 domains (see list of participants). We will now report on this meeting.

At the very beginning, everyone introduced themselves formally with their real name and network address. A form was maintained that prompted Vera Heinau (IN-Berlin.DE) to interject: “This isn't a vote here!”

The representatives of the Maus.DE domain were particularly conspicuous during the presentation. On the first day there were about 8 people from Maus.DE alone, to which the first reaction was: “The mice are multiplying like rats!”.

Before we really got down to business, the agenda was read out and explained.

First, Terra gave an overview of the current situation and status of the IN:

The IN is currently an EUnet participant. Under the terms of the contract with EUnet, a maximum of 500 MB of traffic per month can currently be routed via Germany.EU.net and a maximum of 5 Class C networks. The IN pays a basic fee of DM 2,000 per month. An additional DM 5 per basic service user or DM 20 per IP user per month is added. The total costs to be paid in April 92 were around DM 4,400.

The IN currently has 21 domains and 4 candidates whose applications are being processed. Of the 5 Class C networks, 4 have been allocated, 2 of which are in use. There are a total of 2 further applicants. After various calls from the audience, this number quickly increased to 9-10.

Terra then gave an overview of the decision criteria for a provider or a change of provider:

• Cost-effective use of international networks and gateways to Bitnet, X.400, etc.
• Legal protection of services and transmission paths
• Note: Many domains currently use transmission paths of other providers either intentionally or unintentionally.
• Use of existing infrastructure
• Note: There is a reason for this shared use: In many cases, the infrastructure of a provider is already in place and well developed. If this structure can be shared, there is no reason to duplicate it at extra cost. The problem for local domains is often not the existence of supply structures in the local network, but the willingness of the owners to allow their lines to be shared.
• A change of provider would entail routing changes. In any case, this change must be seamless and take place without any loss of connectivity.
• Avoidance of supply failures
• A potential provider must be stable and efficient. At the same time, the change must not lead to a deterioration of the infrastructure in the participating domains.
• Better possibility of representing network policy interests
• (At this point, the discussion initially focused on the topic of which institutions (may) cooperate with the IN and how well). Note:
• One of the IN's founding tasks was also to represent the interests of private users vis-à-vis the EUnet and DFN. For example, the IN was severely affected by the discontinuation of gateway services between BITNET/Internet in Bonn for a short time and without notice.
• Note from Heiko:  RZ of the FUB supports the activities of IN-Berlin.DE, even if it says everywhere that the services of IN-Berlin.DE are not a service of the RZ (and therefore there is no _claim_ to the FU).
• Note (Terra again):  The current situation in IN for university contacts of domains is generally that access is based solely on the good will of the universities and is in no way secured in any way (IN is not a DFN customer). The problem seems to be the use of DFN lines everywhere. Because IN is not in DFN, many computer centers have problems with cooperation (there are exceptions). Computer operation groups in computer science can usually work more unbureaucratically. Heiko points out that the IN is now also an “official” name: The universities of Dresden and Chemnitz have expressed interest in an IN domain for the official supply of students. Bodo: In his experience, access via companies is often easier. Terra argues against this. Andreas Bäss reminds us that universities are not a panacea either: WiN capacities are also limited and a university will think twice about letting a co-user onto its lines who then loads additional load onto these lines. Even if this is possible at the moment, it can end just as quickly if the network capacity becomes scarce. DFN membership is therefore not a panacea.

Terra: Why do universities let people use their dense network lines?

• Many IN users are students! An IN domain relieves a data center or the university in general of the work of having to organize, finance and operate this service itself.
• Countertrade: The University of Oldenburg, for example, exchanges bandwidth for the provision of ComLink groups and connectivity to certain IN domains, which is needed for third-party funded projects (here: PLUTO), for example.

• An overview of possible offers from German providers:

  • Infonet Infonet, for example, offers connectivity for German companies to American parent companies.
  • Note Baess: they are expensive, but stable. Unfortunately, there is no infrastructure available that could be used for the IN. Access only in six major German cities.
  • XLink
  
  

  Angebot von XLink (Projekt an der UKa)
  Bedingung:	keine kommerzielle Nutzung
  Leistungen:	keine Kopfgebühr, keine Volumengebuehren
  Problem:	keine Infrastruktur
  Kosten:	DE-NIC (50 DM Monat) (wird von jeden Provider verlangt)
  Kontingente:	15 MB	375 DM
  	60 MB	750 DM
  	120 MB	1125 DM
  	500 MB	1500 DM

  These prices are right in the middle between XLink's prices for a university and a commercial facility. After six months, the average monthly volume is determined and a new quota is rented for the next six months.
  
  • DFN

        The association for the operation of a German research network based in Berlin made a flat-rate offer:

•  

  Bedingung:	Verein (mit Forschungs/Lehre-Ziel)   DFN-Mitgliedschaft   keine kommerzielle Nutzung
  Beschränkungen:	WiN-Leitung muss am 1.7. des Jahres fürs gesamte Jahr bezahlt werden.   (18.000 DM pro 9600er Leitung)
  Infrastruktur:	Nutzung des Wissenschaftlichen Hochschulnetzes (WiN)
  Kosten:	keine Grundgebühr
  	DFN Mitgliedschaft	167 DM/Monat ( 2000 DM/Jahr)
  	WiN Anschluss (9600 bps)	1500 DM/Monat (18000 DM/Jahr)   (incl. nationales IP, X.400, etc)
  	IP Teilnahme (9600 bps)	850 DM/Monat (10200 DM/Jahr)

• EUnet  
  

  EUnet made an offer (1) (official). A further offer (2) was negotiated as a special agreement, but has not yet been clarified in EUnet.

    

  EUnet(1)
  Bedingung:	Verein   kein komerzieller Nutzer
  Beschränkungen:	max. 5 Class C Netze   max. 500 MB/Monat Traffic
  Infrastruktur:	Link über EUnet Teilnehmer, POPs oder EUnet (1 Link)
  Kosten:	DE-NIC Gebühr	50 DM/Monat
  	IEU-b Gebühr	2000 DM/Monat
  	Domain-Tabelleneintrag	50 DM (einmalig)
  EUnet(2)
  Bedingung:	wie oben   Sondervereinbarung zw. IN und EUnet
  Beschränkungen:	nur für Mitglieder
  Kosten:	DE-NIC Gebühr	50 DM/Monat
  	Basisdienste (Mail)	300 DM/Monat
  	Grundgebühr für IP	100 DM/Monat und Class C Netz
  Kontingente:	10 MB	500 DM/Monat
  	100 MB	1000 DM/Monat
  	500 MB	2000 DM/Monat

  • After six months, the average monthly quota is determined and a new quota is rented for the next six months.

  In the ensuing discussion, questions were asked and various arguments exchanged.

  What is the exact cost function for the quotas at EUnet?

  Heiko noted that the DFN is settling for a payment method for the WiN connection in 1993 that accommodates the IN. In 1992, the connection must be paid for at the end of 1992. Normal conditions from 1994.

  Bodo Rüskamp (open.de) noted that with a 9600 bps WiN connection there is a limit due to the bandwidth of 9600 bps. This is approx. 3 GB/month if other connections are not used.

  Bodo also brought the IP billing data from EUnet for the first quarter of 1992:

(These figures are the mails counted by EUnet. However, due to the use of MX records, the majority of mails no longer pass through the computers of the German EUnet, so that these figures are only of very limited significance).

Terra: Other WiN connections (e.g. from universities) can be officially shared (in accordance with the WiN contract). The question arose as to what happens if the WiN connection used is faster than one's own. He commented on this: “The DFN says: ‘We don't care’. Well, they put it more officially.”

Regarding the IN's self-image and the comment “We pay that out of our petty cash”, Kristian says: “The IN _is_ a petty cash fund. We *only* have mail costs.”

At some points, Terra had problems following the discussion: “I have the problem of not having drunk too much Fanta yet.”

A solution was discussed to rent WiN from DFN and IP from Eunet. Terra: EUnet can't measure our traffic correctly because we route far too mixed (different protocols, different domain gateways). If you know the reasons for this, you can minimize the traffic measured by EUnet. Improvement through suitable MX records on non-EUnet subscribers -> no Unido traffic. This would minimize the bandwidth used and thus mean purchasing lower quotas in the medium term.

Bodo has applied for a dedicated line to unido and wants to use it for IP, as do other subscribers. However, the main reason for purchasing IP is the cost-effective delivery of mail and less IP. However, mails may cost extra with Unido (with IEU-a).

Heiko Schlichting noted that all solutions do not cause any problems for IN-Berlin, as the operator of EUnet-POP in Berlin can also have a line laid to DFN or route to DFN via existing lines.

After extensive discussion, the options were summarized:

1. DFN solution
   • Costs approx. 2500 DM/month
   • DFN is _the_ network policy association in Germany
   • University with a connection in every city (will they let us?)
   • Legalization
   • Problems for domains that are supplied via EUnet connection
2. EUnet solution
   • Costs 2050 DM/month
   • IP access through POP's (Hamburg, Berlin and Munich)
   • Maximum 500 MB per month (costs above that!) and 5 Class C networks
   • No improvement in the legal situation, problems for WiN co-users
3. Hybrid solution
   • monthly costs 350 + 1670 + n * 100 DM + contingent
   • EUnet and WiN infrastructure
   • Total legal protection
   • Quotas can be a problem
   • Costs with n = 2, 250 MB quota => approx. 3470 DM

After discussion, the following options are added:

1. Solution 3 plus DFN IP and WiN line to Kiel
   • DFN/IP (850 DM per month) is paid by Toppoint if the IN-IP connection goes to Kiel. (3170 DM IN, 850 DM Toppoint)
   • GUN would nevertheless switch a 2nd WiN connection for itself. This means: 3170 DM IN, 850 DM TP, 2350 DM GUN
2. Solution 3) plus DFN/IP
   • 4020 DM
   • No dependence on Toppoint

1. Goal:	Lösung 1)
   Starting point:	Lösung 3)

    

2. Goal:	Pauschale bzw. günstigste Lösung
   Starting point:	Lösung 5)

    

The discussion continued. The question of price increases at DFN was raised. The prices for 9600 bps WiN and 9600 IP should not increase. However, gateway services to Bitnet and X.400 are to be linked to the WiN connection, which would result in a new cost factor of 100-200 DM/month.

However, the costs for X.400/Telebox are fixed and very high. But does not have to be used. Costs for Bitnet may also be incurred for EUnet. DFN is largely sponsored by the BMFT. Sponsorship expires at the end of 93. However, the sponsorship only applies to OSI services.

Short-term solutions: Alternatives 1) and 2) are radical solutions that are not viable for half of the domains in each case. Now that we have stepped into the limelight, a legal solution must be found. Both solutions would lead to the creation of new long-distance links and thus effectively more expensive for some of the domains. At the same time, it would not have been possible to obtain more favorable offers from EUnet without stepping into the limelight. Both solutions a) and b) are unanimously rejected.

On hybrid solutions: In the short term, definitely viable, as legal protection for EUnet and DFN and _in any case_ cheaper than the previous solution.

Another suggestion from Heiko:

• On 1.10:
• EUnet/UUCP and EUnet/IP with contingent, which will probably be kept and at the same time the possibility to get the DFN line and do DFN/IP.
• In the long term, migration to DFN.

Further vote: Who is in favor of purchasing DFN IP? Accepted without dissenting votes. Solutions 3) and 6) are thus also completed.

A break was taken. The representatives of GUN and Toppoint should have the opportunity to further elaborate a proposal. In a small circle (IN-Berlin.DE, GUN.DE, Toppoint.DE, CCC.DE and others) the following proposal is developed:

The quarterly costs of the proposal are calculated:

3Q 92: 2217 DM, 4Q 02: 4142 DM, 1Q 93: 4567 DM

An alternative proposal is made to use the EUnet(2) offer with:

• 100 MB contingent
• the IP flat rate of DM 100 is borne by those who use the corresponding Class C network.

New calculation:

3Q 92: 1717 DM, 4Q 92: 3642 DM, 1Q 93: 4067 DM

Heiko: in favor of solution with EUnet 2, as

• Costs variable (decrease if the step-by-step migration to DFN takes place)
• Motivation to migrate to DFN stronger (100 DM saved for Class C)

Further arguments:

• 1Q 93 is a maximum; with lower usage through clever net work management, a lower quota is also possible.
• Those who use IP pay for it.

A vote was taken. => Proposal was adopted unanimously in plenary.

The basic position of domains not present was reported: owl.de : In favor of DFN change ish.de : Also in favor of DFN change oche.de: Computer dead The votes of swb.de and zer.de are missing. Decision on the last proposal with EUnet(2) was accepted without dissenting votes.

After a break and general recovery:

Part 2: The financial situation 3Q/4Q 1991 and Gereon.

A.Bäss (IN treasurer) reported:

Invoices for 3Q and 4Q 1991 have been received from EUnet. The 3Q 1991 invoice has now been paid, the 4Q 1991 invoice cannot yet be paid as no statement has been received from Gereon. In order to avoid a reminder, the following proposals are made:

1. Should the 4Q/1991 invoice first be paid from the 1Q/1992 funds to avoid a reminder from EUnet? ...adopted without dissenting vote.
2. All domains listed below should submit account statements for the transfers or the transfer slips for 3Q/1991 and 4Q/1991 to A.Bäss again so that he can reconstruct the statement. This should be done by 7/31/1992. The domains that could not prove their contribution payments by 31.07.92 must transfer the amounts to the IN again. ...adopted without a dissenting vote.

General departure - off to day 2.

During the night, Andreas Bäss had transferred the figures and was therefore able to present the following table:

There is now a discussion (as other costs are to be expected after yesterday's decision) about which fees should be charged in the rest of 1992.

Andreas Frackowiak and Zotty (ruhr.de) arrive late. Terra kindly hands over the attendance list: “Sign in! With 'v' as late.”

Expected costs for 3Q92 and 4Q92 (monthly):

• 3Q92 1717 DM
• 4Q92 3642 DM

Domain payments to date: about 4400 DM per month total.

Terra:

“Andreas Frackowiak has the problem that he doesn't even know what happened yesterday.”

Andreas:

“Is that a problem ?”

Vera:

“Not for us. :-)”

A.Bäss:

The IN currently has reserves of about 700-800 DM, once all domains have paid. Not many more are missing.

Terra:

Further costs: A WiN connection of the IN, this can be paid monthly in 1993. On July 1, 1994, however, the WiN fee for 94 will be due in total. This means that we need reserves totaling 14000 DM until 1.7.94.

Brian (saar.de):

If we keep the costs constant until 1.7.93, we have reserves of 14400 DM. (Comment: “Oh, he did the math all night”).

It is summarized:

By the end of 93, IN must raise 4400 DM per month to secure funding (subject to changes in external conditions).

Heiko:

Other possible expense: about 150-200 DM a month for gateway services from DFN.

Brian:

Fixing the per capita amount or fixing the total revenue. Setting a revenue target will be discussed in more detail. Option of correcting a total revenue target (e.g. to DM 5000) if the number of subscribers increases. The increase can be below average. It is to be expected that with even approximately similar growth figures, fees will be reduced on average. However, it should be noted that the number of participants is already so high that a reduction in fees will only occur slowly. (“It's simple math”)

Proposed resolution:

The IN sets itself a monthly income target of DM 4500 by the end of 1992. ...Accepted with 2 votes against (enquiry revealed: they wanted 4400 DM...:-)

Proposed resolution:

The revenue target for 1993 is to be set at the 1992 general meeting. ...Accepted without dissenting votes.

Now that the amount to be collected is fixed, the problem is how to allocate it to the individual domains.

Billing scheme from Heiko (proposal):

Each domain should continue to report its systems as before, but according to a slightly different scheme, which allows the individual systems to be classified “fairly” even in heterogeneous domains.

x = number of computers of type A, B, C, D or E.

A - Point similar systems

B - 1 or 2 user systems

C - <= 10 users

D - Mailbox (10-30 users)

E - even larger

How much systems in categories A-E would have to pay (relative to each other) would still have to be discussed.

Comment Terra:

Why do we reproach EUnet for its billing methods, but introduce something like this ourselves?

Ulrich Tiemann (north.de):

Don't set a key now, but agree on the list.

Martin Seeger (toppoint.de):

Wants to set keys now.

Martin Junius (fido.de):

Counting by persons (heads) not possible in mailbox networks.

A.Bäss:

Need for action? Not given!

Heiko:

I see a need to change this.

Motion A.Bäss:

Until the next AGM, at which a new key is to be decided, we will retain the current key, whereby the distribution is to be adjusted iteratively.

The discussion is getting tough. Getting tougher. (The above are only excerpts).

Last proposal by Andreas Bäss is put to the vote ...

...Accepted.

Heiko states for the record that IN-Berlin.DE cannot provide correct numbers with the previous key, as the domain itself is structured heterogeneously.

Now we come to the next item on the agenda. Due to yesterday's decision on the provider restructuring, it is necessary to found an association.

It is agreed to discuss the statutes now and only then to open the founding meeting in order to avoid problems during the founding meeting.

Andreas Frackowiak (Ruhr.DE) and Frank Simon (CCC.DE) present a proposal for the articles of association. Amendments by Patrick (Saar.DE) have already been incorporated

The first issue to be discussed is the seat of the association. Kiel, Oldenburg and Düsseldorf are proposed.

Oldenburg receives 24 votes, Kiel 0 and Düsseldorf 3.

The objectives of the Articles of Association are reviewed and minor changes are made. It is proposed (but not accepted) to include the promotion of the new federal states. About the presence of the IN throughout Germany: “For the IN, ‘new’ federal states are the new federal states AND southern Germany.”

Insertion: Bodo wants different statutes, different association structure (proposal 2):

• Board purely executive
• Domain Council / Presidium consists of delegates from the domains, one delegate for every 10 members
• a.de b.de c.de must elect a board to manage members regionally.
• Points for this proposal (Bodo):
• Represents individuals, therefore large number
• Guarantees a certain structure in the domains

In proposal 1, domains are free in their internal structure. Proposal exactly represents the structure of the current IN organization.

• Presidium works according to rules of procedure, no changes to statutes necessary for “reconfiguration”.
• The IN eV ends with the members. Members are the domains, not the users.

Determination of the basic tendency of the statutes:

Who is in favor of the tendency presented by Bodo?

In favor: 1 Abstentions: 3

Who is in favor of the tendency presented by Terra?

In favor: remainder

The statutes are discussed further until the paragraph in which voting rights are defined has to be discussed. Fierce discussion about voting rights in the domains, no consensus can be found. On the one hand, the small domains feel they are being overrun by a cost-proportional voting right, on the other hand, the large domains cannot tolerate a linear voting right. A compromise proposal with a kind of three-class voting right does not find friends with any party...

The IN meeting threatens to collapse. Martin Seeger moves to end the meeting as it cannot reach a decision. It is again briefly clarified that the primary goal is network participation and that voting rights are only a side issue. A motion is made to accept the proposal (one domain - one vote) for the time being. The problem is to be finally clarified at the next general meeting. IN-Berlin.DE puts on record that the AGM must make THIS decision by consensus.

The motion is adopted unanimously.

The passage on non-profit status is discussed, but no changes are made: (Terra to the plenary: “Good”). Further minor changes are made in the following. Frank Bergknecht (DinoCo.DE) criticizes a proposed amendment.

The people at the front: “You're right, we haven't thought about it.”.

The answer: “Or maybe we did ... the way you're grinning!”

At Bodo's request and after a vote, a paragraph on liability is added.

In the last paragraph (resolution), Dietrich Loebner (Comlink.de) said: “Add the plural to the verbs...”, to which Terra replies, ”Great! What are verbs?”.

Frank Rolf (Hanse.DE) submits a motion for the AGM on disadvantage/veto rights and puts it on record. The aim of this section is to prevent a domain from suddenly being disadvantaged by the overall policy of the IN in such a way that the domain would no longer benefit from its membership.

Colloquially, the additional paragraph is intended to prevent the rest of the IN from “waving off” a domain because of any advantages. This proposal will not be discussed further because the implications cannot be overlooked. As the feared case is not to be expected in the near future, this amendment to the Articles of Association (if there is still a need for it) is to be drafted and proposed at the next AGM.

At 17:10, the inaugural meeting of IN eV is opened. See also the founding minutes.

It is decided to hold a follow-up meeting a la IN meeting as in Willich from 11.12. to 13.12.1992 in Dortmund (organizer: ruhr.de/open.de). The general meeting is also to take place on 12.12. (1st Fall/Winter-Conference)

The event ends, people run to their train connections or trains. A small group has to stay until Monday or even come back (board has to go to the notary on Monday). That evening there are small discussions about the future valuation and voting rights. Opinions also clash in the small circle. A solution will probably have to be found in de.org.in or in the IN mailing list.

At the same time, the Executive Board applies for DFN membership, 2 WiN connections (for 1.10) and one DFN/IP connection (more precisely, the corresponding forms are filled out) in accordance with the decision of the AGM. EUnet is also informed of the decision by e-mail.

On Monday afternoon, the board goes to a notary and applies for the association to be entered in the register of associations. Unfortunately, the notary's secretary is already off work - so Kris is forced to deal with an electronic typewriter at short notice. The registration is applied for and probably accepted within 2 weeks (there is at most one “small” problem. 🙂 ).

That's it ... hopefully nothing has been forgotten 🙂

Kris, Terra, Vera

APPENDIX:

Participants Sat, 20.06.92 (as far as they have entered their names in the list 🙂

Andreas Jahneke(börde.de), Hendrik Grässner(börde.de), Hergo Pape(börde.de), Frank Simon(ccc.de), Dietrich Löbner(comlink.de), Frank Bergknecht(dinoco.de), Martin Junius(fido.de), Andreas Bäß(gun. de), Georg Sassen(gun.de), Rainer Bieniek(gun.de), Axel Zinser(han.de), Martina Höltig(han.de), Frank Rolf(hanse.de), Michael Havemeister(hanse.de), Heiko Schlichting(in-berlin.de), Michael Gaehme(in-berlin. de), Thomas Richter(in-berlin.de), Vera Heinau(in-berlin.de), Mick Schmidt(maus.de), Olav Brinkmann(maus.de), Dirk Rode(north.de), Ulrich Tiemann(north.de), Uta Wilms(north.de), Bernd Örding(open.de), Roger Schwentker(open. de), Bodo Rüskamp(open.de/ruhr.de), Hannes Fischer(saar.de), Patrick Schaaf(saar.de), Kristian Köhntopp(toppoint.de), Martin Seeger(toppoint.de), Stefan Mehne(toppoint.de), Thomas Busse(toppoint.de).

Spotted on Sunday:

Kai Siering(hanse.de), Peter Funk(north.de), Andreas Frackowiak(ruhr.de), Christa Keil(ruhr.de).