[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT
Dirk Frigne
dirk.frigne at geosparc.com
Wed Mar 16 01:35:47 PDT 2016
I already responded to the answers we've received. So:
+1 to approve request for FOSS4G 2017
I also want to investigate how we can get an insurance for such an
additional guarantee for future events. Who is in a good position to
take here some action and get some information. Do we have a volunteer
who can take action here?
Dirk
On 16-03-16 03:08, Michael Smith wrote:
> ----
> Michael Smith
> OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
> treasurer at osgeo.org <mailto:treasurer at osgeo.org>
>
> From: Board <board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> on behalf of Venkatesh Raghavan
> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>>
> Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM
> To: OSGeo Board <board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding -
> IMPORTANT
>
> Dear Board,
>
>> MOT7: Seek additional clarifications and attend to this agenda
>> item by e-mail within 7 working days
>
> Pending the approval of the above motion moved at
> the Board meeting held on 10 March, I would like to
> remind that we have two working days remaining
> to seek further clarification concerning the
> 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding request and
> vote for board approval.
>
> Considering the time available and also the fact that I
> do not intend to seek further clarification from my side,
> I would like to move the motion to approve the request
> from BLOC.
>
>
> +1 to approve request for FOSS4G 2017
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>
>
>
> On 2016/03/15 21:17, Michael Terner wrote:
>> Venka:
>> Thanks for the fair questions and thanks to the board for the serious
>> consideration of our request.
>>
>> Steven, thanks for the general outline of a response and an enumeration of
>> our request. Your four points are entirely accurate and indeed several
>> people guided us to examine the Bonn agreement as a template for an
>> OSGeo/LOC agreement. This is precisely what we did, although in our case,
>> and unlike Bonn, the BLOC is not a legal entity and thus as with some past
>> conferences our PCO is part of the agreement as our "financial agent". So
>> here are a few additional details on the four main points:
>>
>> 1. *Names*: Our agreement has three parties: OSGeo, the Boston Location
>> Organizing Committee (BLOC) and Delaney Meeting & Event Management, our
>> PCO, who is acting as our financial agent.
>> 2. *Seed funding*: We are asking for approval of up to maximum of
>> $70,000 of advances. As per the email threads, we anticipate doing this
>> through two separate requests. The first would be for $20,000 +/-
>> immediately following our hoped for approval of the agreement. The second
>> would be for the remaining $50,000 after the Bonn Conference concludes and
>> as we begin to ramp up at a faster pace (and as deposits come due).
>> 3. *Additional guarantee*: Again, we followed the Bonn agreement model,
>> and as Steven points out the "total exposure" for OSGeo between the
>> advances and additional guarantee are the same for both Boston and Bonn. I
>> would also observe that the known precedent of OSGeo providing these
>> guarantees was something we considered strongly in forming our bid. Indeed,
>> both the BLOC and OSGeo are "in this together" with substantial "skin in
>> the game" and we are both strongly motivated for a superior and financially
>> successful event. We will work tirelessly to ensure Boston continues the
>> FOSS4G streak of being financially successful.
>> 4. *Contractual clauses*: As has happened over the years, we would
>> certainly urge OSGeo to continue building on the template agreement and
>> these clauses provide important *mutual *protections as well as
>> providing a framework for cost-effective dispute resolution in the unlikely
>> event it is needed. They are standard clauses, but they also articulate
>> important principles.
>>
>> Last, please consider the BLOC to have a strong +1 to Dirk's suggestion
>> that OSGeo look at an insurance approach for FOSS4G that could be designed
>> to cover future events and could leverage the good financial record of past
>> FOSS4G's. This would be one more thing that the "next conference" (e.g.,
>> 2018) would not have to start from scratch with. Along those lines, we very
>> much appreciate Cameron resuscitating the "Priorities for Conference
>> Committee" thread, and anticipate chiming in over the coming weekend.
>> Indeed, the "starting from scratch" issues are something that are
>> resonating with our team.
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any further questions, or need
>> clarifications on the points made above. We remain very hopeful that we can
>> receive Board approval *this week*. And, we are also hopeful that if we do
>> receive that approval it will be provided with some guidance on "what comes
>> next" in terms of putting signatures on the agreement and formally
>> initiating the financial request for an advance. The signatures part is
>> most important as we continue to face a near term deadline for signing an
>> agreement with our venue that will legally secure the date.
>>
>> Thanks in advance...
>>
>> MT & the BLOC
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Steven,
>>>
>>> This is a clear statement and an improvement of the contract in relation
>>> to last year in relation to exposed risk.
>>>
>>> i.m.h.o. this should pass the board's decision for this event. If the
>>> board should have still questions about the contract in general, we
>>> should discuss them and formulate an advise for improvement for future
>>> events.
>>> One improvement could be that OSGeo get insured for the extra exposed
>>> risk (for future events), based on the financial history of all the
>>> FOSS4G events in the past.
>>>
>>> Dirk.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14-03-16 16:39, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>> Venda, Board
>>>>
>>>> The proposed agreement is identical to the one that OSGeo has entered
>>> into with Bonn for 2016, with the following variations:
>>>> 1. The names
>>>> 2. The seed funding is up to £70,000 not $57.500
>>>> 3. The advance is for up to $45,000 not $57,500 (overall the total
>>> exposure is the same as 2016 at $115,000)
>>>> 4. The insertion of Mitigation, Indemnification and Arbitration clauses
>>> which I understand are standard clauses in US agreements of this type and
>>> apply equally to both parties.
>>>> The additional guarantee is intended to cover the very unlikely
>>> circumstance that the FOSS4G is financially unsuccessful. If the event
>>> loses money OSGeo is at risk of losing our seed money and an additional
>>> $45,000 up to a maximum exposure of $115,000. This agreement limits our
>>> exposure to $115,000 previously we had potentially unlimited exposure.
>>>> I hope this helps the board in considering this motion
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> ______
>>>> Steven
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Mar 2016, at 14:36, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Micheal, Guido and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The agreement of seed funding was presented by Guido
>>>>> at the Board meeting on 10 March, 2016 and the Board
>>>>> members requested for further clarification especially
>>>>> about the "additional guarantee".
>>>>>
>>>>> Since all the board members are not following conference
>>>>> mailing list, I would request that Micheal of Guido
>>>>> to provide a brief summary of the request including
>>>>> clarification on the "additional guarantee" and also
>>>>> link to any relevant documents. This will help the
>>>>> board members to get a clearer understanding and
>>>>> facilitate to taking timely decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Venka
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/03/10 2:51, Michael Terner wrote:
>>>>>> Eli:
>>>>>> Thanks for the pointer to SVN, Guido is versed in these technologies
>>> and
>>>>>> will act as our "user" and POC on this (and you've seen he's already
>>> chimed
>>>>>> in to this effect). We will do our part to document our experiences and
>>>>>> make everything available via SVN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, apologies for the "FOSSGIS e.V." reference; we understood what
>>> it was
>>>>>> and attempted to excise them all from "our version" of the document.
>>>>>> Apparently we missed one so thanks for the heads-up. As per Steven's
>>> note,
>>>>>> his latest version with the lower "additional guarantee" amount should
>>> have
>>>>>> this corrected already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again to all for your assistance on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Guido Stein <gstein at appgeo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Eli,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would be happy to help with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me know the credentials and I will do my best to update as we get
>>>>>>> these official documents squared away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -guido
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:22 PM Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you or someone on the BLOC able to use svn? If so, I'd like to
>>>>>>>> give them access to http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/ so that
>>> things
>>>>>>>> like these documents can be stored there (at least once finalized and
>>>>>>>> approved).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "FOSSGIS e.V." is a German organization/corporation/nonprofit
>>>>>>>> associated with the FOSSGIS conference and Bonn LOC. They are not a
>>>>>>>> party to this agreement and all mention of them should be removed.
>>>>>>>> Please revised the documents accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eli
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Steven:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for keeping this moving and the good questions, suggestions
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> observations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Board:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much for taking this up on short notice. We really
>>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>>>> the attention.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Steven's questions/suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES, we are comfortable changing the "additional guarantee"
>>> downward to
>>>>>>>>> match the Bonn "total value." Indeed, we were "connecting the dots"
>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>>> the Bonn template, and had not completed a full risk assessment.
>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>> makes a very good point that the "insurance policies" that we can
>>> pursue
>>>>>>>>> after we have an agreement will help better quantify "actual risk"
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> exposure. We are comfortable proceeding with what Steven proposes
>>> (i.e.,
>>>>>>>>> $115k max), and if we feel an alteration is necessary/warranted
>>> we'll
>>>>>>>> bring
>>>>>>>>> that back to conference dev at a later time. Indeed, our nearest
>>> term
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> is to formally enter into agreement so that we can secure our venue
>>> via
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> PCO. So, YES, $115k (i.e., $70k advance, $45k "additional
>>> guarantee") is
>>>>>>>>> good. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>> YES, we appreciate your understanding and open mindedness to the
>>> legal
>>>>>>>>> clauses (thank you Darrell for the +1 on that). Ultimately, these
>>> all
>>>>>>>>> protect both OSGeo and the LOC/PCO and/or show a preference for
>>>>>>>>> non-litigious dispute resolution. Over time, these might be
>>> considered
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> additions to the "template agreement". And, we welcome further
>>>>>>>> review/input
>>>>>>>>> from people familiar with contracts/agreements.
>>>>>>>>> As Steven relays, our PCO reviewed and was comfortable with the
>>>>>>>> agreement's
>>>>>>>>> existing language on guarantees. She only asked that the additional
>>>>>>>> clauses
>>>>>>>>> be added. And, as per above, if we perform a more detailed risk
>>>>>>>> assessment
>>>>>>>>> it sounds like there is an avenue to re-approach Conf Dev on
>>> increasing
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> guarantee.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, OSGeo's very good 10 year record of having strong
>>> conferences
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> help moderate insurance costs. And the BLOC has every intention of
>>>>>>>> extending
>>>>>>>>> that success with Boston.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sincerely and with thanks...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MT & the BLOC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The additional guarantee for Bonn was based upon a risk analysis at
>>>>>>>>>> different points in the build up to the conference and an estimate
>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> maximum exposure if the event had to be cancelled or proceeded
>>> with a
>>>>>>>> lower
>>>>>>>>>> than viable attendance. It was not automatically equal to the seed
>>>>>>>> funding.
>>>>>>>>>> I don’t want to just negotiate you down to a lower figure. Can you
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> your PCO consider the exposure at different points and come up
>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>> revised additional guarantee that you need. If you will be
>>> offsetting
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> additional risk through an insurance policy it might be worth
>>>>>>>> exploring the
>>>>>>>>>> premium versus excess ratios to come up with the most efficient
>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>> between an OSGeo additional guarantee and insurance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In my motion to the CC I asked for approval for the seed funds but
>>> did
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> mention the ‘additional guarantee’. Given time pressures I am
>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>> submit a proposal to the Board for consideration at tomorrow
>>> meeting
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> seed funds of $70k and an additional guarantee of up to $45k i.e. a
>>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>>>>> exposure of $115k which is the same level of guarantee offered to
>>> Bonn
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> this year. If you come up with a different level of additional
>>>>>>>> guarantee or
>>>>>>>>>> the CC objects I will have to go back to the board and ask them to
>>>>>>>> adapt the
>>>>>>>>>> motion subsequently.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Darrell has suggested, in a separate mail in this thread, that the
>>>>>>>>>> additional ‘legal’ paras are standard clauses, unless someone else
>>>>>>>> objects I
>>>>>>>>>> am happy to forward the agreement (with additional guarantee
>>> amended)
>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>> board for approval.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Darrell also raised the question of how OSGeo can limit it’s
>>> liability
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the event that the PCO or the LOC undertakes irrevocable
>>> commitments in
>>>>>>>>>> excess of the agreed sum. My understanding is that the agreement is
>>>>>>>>>> primarily between OSGeo and the PCO with the LOC acting as our
>>> agent,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> PCO by signing this agreement accepts that OSGeo liability is
>>> limited
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> $115k (or whatever sum we agree) and will take necessary steps
>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>>>>> insurance to mitigate any risks). While we there is some
>>> uncertainty
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> the enforceability of this agreement or its outcome, it is a lot
>>>>>>>> better than
>>>>>>>>>> we had previously where nearly everything was done on the basis of
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> ‘gentleman’s agreement’ - that said, so far no global FOSS4G has
>>> had
>>>>>>>> to call
>>>>>>>>>> on OSGeo to bail them out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have copied the Board into this mail so that they are fully
>>> aware of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> background and our discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ______
>>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 20:42, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Totally fair questions. Here's where these things came from:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the "advance" and the guarantee: We followed the form of
>>> how
>>>>>>>>>> Bonn was setup. In the Bonn template "schedule" that was shared
>>> with us
>>>>>>>>>> there was $57,500 for the "advance" and $57,500 for the "additional
>>>>>>>>>> guarantee". Then the schedule identified $115,000 for the "Maximum
>>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>>>>> OSGeo financial exposure.". The previous threads had identified
>>> our
>>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>>>>> "maximum advance" as $70,000 (that we would seek in two
>>> installments).
>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>> the "additional guarantee" had not been discussed explicitly I
>>>>>>>> followed the
>>>>>>>>>> "Bonn model" and had the additional guarantee match the advance
>>>>>>>> payment,
>>>>>>>>>> i.e., the $70,000; for a total exposure of $140,000. If that's not
>>>>>>>>>> appropriate, or the "additional guarantee"; or "total exposure"
>>> needs
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> back down we will figure it out with your guidance.
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the "legal" language: In reviewing the Bonn agreement we
>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> both pleased and a little surprised that there weren't more "terms
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> conditions". We're all for simplicity and clarity. That said, our
>>> PCO,
>>>>>>>>>> Delaney Meeting & Event Management (DMEM) made these suggestions as
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> will be a signatory to the agreement. In short, these are common
>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>> protections that are routine in almost all contracts. We certainly
>>>>>>>>>> understand and respect your potential need to have additional
>>> review,
>>>>>>>> and we
>>>>>>>>>> certainly reviewed the language but did not feel that engaging
>>> legal
>>>>>>>> counsel
>>>>>>>>>> was necessary due to the fact that these clauses are so commonplace
>>>>>>>> (i.e., I
>>>>>>>>>> have seen this language many times before) and because they protect
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>> parties to the agreement. Here's my layman's summary of what they
>>> mean
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> why they are important (and this is in no way is designed to
>>> dissuade
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> from getting the reviews OSGeo thinks are necessary):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mitigation Clause/Force Majeure: If something terrible and beyond
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> control of either of us happens (e.g., crazy weather; terrorism
>>> that
>>>>>>>> locks
>>>>>>>>>> down travel; etc.) that causes the event to be cancelled late in
>>> the
>>>>>>>> game,
>>>>>>>>>> there is a means to do that. As per later in the document, we will
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> "cancellation insurance" so that if this happens neither party
>>> loses
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>> spent $'s.
>>>>>>>>>> Indemnification: Is a mutual protection that if either party is
>>> acting
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> bad faith or shows negligence or blatant incompetence, that causes
>>>>>>>> damage
>>>>>>>>>> and as a result the other party (i.e., the one that did not cause
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> problem) is sued, the party at fault is responsible for those
>>> damages
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> must indemnify the non-responsible party.
>>>>>>>>>> Arbitration: If there is a dispute, this clause indicates that it
>>> will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> resolved through arbitration, as opposed to a lawsuit. Arbitration
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> generally a quicker and less costly process (at least in the USA).
>>>>>>>>>> Event insurance: We will obtain insurance to cover both
>>> cancellation
>>>>>>>>>> exposure and liability that may result from this event. This is
>>>>>>>> commonplace
>>>>>>>>>> and our PCO is familiar with these types of policies and affordable
>>>>>>>> means of
>>>>>>>>>> obtaining them. These costs are included in our budget.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even with these additions, this agreement remains very lean.
>>>>>>>> Obviously, we
>>>>>>>>>> do not want to add unnecessary complexity or slow things down.
>>> Rather,
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> intent is to have a solid agreement that protects both parties and
>>>>>>>> helps to
>>>>>>>>>> cement a productive and collaborative partnership.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if there's any other information you require; or
>>>>>>>>>> anything else we can do to clarify things. If this needs more
>>> thorough
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> time consuming review we regret that, but also accept it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know what comes next, and in particular whether we
>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> revise our request for the size of the "additional guarantee".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to all for the work you're putting into this...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Steven Feldman <
>>> shfeldman at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The overall guarantee including seed funding is $140k - I do not
>>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>>>>>> this high a number being advised previously. Could you clarify.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While I do not have any fundamental disagreement with the clauses
>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> you have added at the end, they will need to be reviewed by
>>> someone
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> legally qualified than me which may incur both costs and delay.
>>>>>>>>>>> ______
>>>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 16:43, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Conference Dev Committee:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your support of the motion to provide our
>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>> seed funding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As promised earlier in the thread, attached is a "draft agreement"
>>>>>>>>>>> between OSGeo and the Boston Location Organizing Committee
>>> (BLOC), as
>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> as with our PCO, Delaney Meeting & Event Management (DMEM). We are
>>>>>>>> hopeful
>>>>>>>>>>> that this is on target and can be passed on to the Board in time
>>> for
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> meeting on Thursday. We are assuming that Conference Dev will
>>> bring
>>>>>>>> this to
>>>>>>>>>>> the Board's attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's what you will find in the attached document (attached as
>>> .DOC,
>>>>>>>>>>> .ODT and .PDF):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Our re-work of the Bonn Template Agreement to include our specific
>>>>>>>>>>> requests for advance and guarantees; as well as our "percentage of
>>>>>>>> profits
>>>>>>>>>>> returned to OSGeo" language that was also contained in our
>>> proposal
>>>>>>>> (and is
>>>>>>>>>>> slightly different than 90%).
>>>>>>>>>>> Some common-sense legal terms that were suggested by DMEM for
>>> things
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> Force Majeur, mutual indemnification and arbitration of disputes.
>>> We
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> affirm our commitment to purchase our own cancellation and
>>> liability
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance.
>>>>>>>>>>> Attachment 1 which is structured as a PCO contract between OSGeo
>>> and
>>>>>>>> DMEM
>>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of the BLOC, allowing DMEM to serve as our financial
>>> agent
>>>>>>>> and as
>>>>>>>>>>> the entity that would sign the commitment with our venue (this was
>>>>>>>>>>> distributed earlier).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Given the nature of this arrangement we have three signature
>>> lines for
>>>>>>>>>>> OSGeo, the BLOC, and also DMEM, on behalf of the BLOC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any question, or need anything
>>> further.
>>>>>>>>>>> And again, thanks in advance for carrying this forward to the
>>> Board.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MT & the BLOC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential
>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> legally privileged information. If you are not an intended
>>> recipient
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use,
>>>>>>>> copy,
>>>>>>>>>>> distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information
>>>>>>>> contained
>>>>>>>>>>> in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this
>>> message
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
>>>>>>>> e-mail and
>>>>>>>>>>> delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics,
>>> Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> (AppGeo).<OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT v3.odt><OSGeo +
>>> BostonLOC
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreement DRAFT v3.pdf><OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT
>>>>>>>>>>> v3.doc>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Terner
>>>>>>>>>> Executive Vice President
>>>>>>>>>> 617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
>>>>>>>>>> Applied Geographics, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> 24 School Street, Suite 500
>>>>>>>>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>>>>>>>>> www.AppGeo.com
>>>>>>>>>> Please come to Boston for Global FOSS4G 2017:
>>> http://2017.foss4g.org/
>>>>>>>>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or
>>>>>>>>>> legally privileged information. If you are not an intended
>>> recipient or
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use,
>>> copy,
>>>>>>>>>> distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information
>>>>>>>> contained
>>>>>>>>>> in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this
>>> message
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
>>>>>>>> e-mail and
>>>>>>>>>> delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics,
>>> Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> (AppGeo).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Michael Terner
>>>>>>>>> Executive Vice President
>>>>>>>>> 617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
>>>>>>>>> Applied Geographics, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> 24 School Street, Suite 500
>>>>>>>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>>>>>>>> www.AppGeo.com
>>>>>>>>> Please come to Boston for Global FOSS4G 2017:
>>> http://2017.foss4g.org/
>>>>>>>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or
>>>>>>>> legally
>>>>>>>>> privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or
>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy,
>>>>>>>> distribute,
>>>>>>>>> disclose or take any action based on the information contained in
>>> this
>>>>>>>>> e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and
>>>>>>>> material in
>>>>>>>>> error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
>>> delete
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Board mailing list
>>>> Board at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>> --
>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>> ir. Dirk Frigne
>>> CEO @geosparc
>>>
>>> Geosparc n.v.
>>> Brugsesteenweg 587
>>> B-9030 Ghent
>>> Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
>>> GSM: +32 495 508 799
>>>
>>> http://www.geomajas.orghttp://www.geosparc.com
>>>
>>> @DFrigne
>>> be.linkedin.com/in/frigne
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
--
Yours sincerely,
ir. Dirk Frigne
CEO @geosparc
Geosparc n.v.
Brugsesteenweg 587
B-9030 Ghent
Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
GSM: +32 495 508 799
http://www.geomajas.org
http://www.geosparc.com
@DFrigne
be.linkedin.com/in/frigne
More information about the Board
mailing list