From: Larson, Chris (Contractor) (Chris.Larson@xxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 11:17:08 GMT-3
Ok. My original point is getting lost and is really stupid and petty to
begin with but let me try one more time!!
The NDA and the confidentiality agreement are 2 different things. What we
all tend to call the NDA is what cisco calls the confidentiality agreement.
The Actual cisco NDA only applies to certified individuals. READ IT.
The confidentiality agreement applies to anyone taking the exam and is
signed before the exam.
In the NDA terms and conditions it clearly states that the contract does not
commence until Cisco notifies you you have pased. PERIOD. Read it. That is
what the NDA says. The confidentiality agreement you sign before the exam is
different. The NDA you sign after is clearly only for certified individuals,
and no matter how much you debate or argue that is a fact. You would see
that if you read it.
It clearly states in Terms and Terminations section of the NDA (not the
confidentiality agreement) that the contract commences once cisco has
notified the individual that he has met the requirements to be certified.
So unless you meet the requirements (pass the exam) Cisco will not notify
you and the NDA would not apply. This is so simple to see if you read the
NDA.
The confidentiality agreement is different. The NDA ONLY APPLIES TO
CERTIFIED INDIVIDUALS. READ IT AND READ THE TERMS AND TERMINATION!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:lachisho@tnc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:20 PM
To: Leigh Anne Chisholm; Larson, Chris (Contractor); 'Thomas Larus';
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: one day format
PS. Even though the reference later in the document changes references from
"Certified Individual" to just "individual", you still can't construe this
to mean "certified individuals" as referring to individuals that are
certified whereas "individuals" referrs to individuals not certified.
Without having seen that actual agreement, I'd have to conclude from what
you've said, that it is just an example of sloppy terminology on the part of
the lawyer that drew up the contract.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Leigh Anne Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:05 PM
> To: Larson, Chris (Contractor); 'Thomas Larus'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: one day format
>
>
> Sorry Chris, but you're misinterpreting "legal-ese".
> "Hereinafter referred
> to as" means that the term that follows this statement is used in lieu of
> the name you put on the contract. Instead of saying "Chris
> Larson agrees to
> the following conditions", the document states: "Certified
> Individual agrees
> to the following conditions" - which means that the undersigned (in your
> case, Chris Larson) agrees to the following conditions. It's a
> common legal
> substitution you'll find in any generic contract. "Lessee", "Lessor",
> "Guarantor", are common forms of substitutions used in place of the common
> names of the contracting parties.
>
> For a good example of the substitution process in action, check out this
> link:
>
> http://www.socialworkconsult.com/contract.html
>
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
> PS. No wonder the lawyers in the firm I worked for liked me. I
> spoke their
> language. And that **SCARES** me...
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Larson, Chris (Contractor)
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:29 PM
> > To: 'Thomas Larus'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: one day format
> >
> >
> > Actually, at the top it says undersigned hereinafter referred to as
> > Certified Individual. But in the terms and termination you would
> > notice that
> > it says the agreement commences once Cisco has notified that
> > individual of
> > passing the requirements for certification.
> >
> > That is why I say it only applies to certified individuals.
> Because if you
> > read the whole thing (even though the top says undersigned hereinafter
> > refered to as certified individual) the terms and termination
> > section of the
> > agreement, the contract only commences once Cisco has notified
> > you that you
> > have passed.
> >
> > Therefore the NDA (not the confidentiality agreement) only applies to
> > certified individuals.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Larus [mailto:tlarus@mwc.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:09 PM
> > To: Larson, Chris (Contractor); 'david'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: one day format
> >
> >
> > Do not take this as legal advice, but it would be a big mistake
> > to interpret
> > the words "Certified Individual" in the NDA agreement as
> applying only to
> > those people who have actually passed and become certified. In
> > the context
> > of the NDA, the term "Certified Individual" is set equal to "the
> > undersigned" -- the person signing the agreement before taking an exam.
> > Look at the very first paragraph of the NDA. If the agreement
> referred to
> > "the undersigned" as "Cheese Sandwich," all references to
> > "Cheese Sandwich"
> > would apply to the test taker.
> >
> > You and I, and everyone else on this list are "Certified
> > Individuals" bound
> > by this agreement.
> >
> > I'm a lawyer who never liked the gladiatorial aspects side of
> > law, so I fled
> > to networking. Now if I could only find a job that involves
> > legal research
> > and writing as well as Cisco networking, I would be a happy man
> indeed. I
> > have a dream that someday some headhunter will call me with a
> job posting
> > requiring a CCIE or CCIE-candidate with experience as a lawyer.
> > The closest
> > thing I've heard of is a contract negotiator for Cisco (in
> Belgium or the
> > Netherlands, I think it was), but that would not involve enough hands-on
> > technical work, and I am not good at driving a hard bargain.
> >
> >
> > Thomas Larus, CCNP, CCNA, MCSE, JD
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larson, Chris (Contractor)" <Chris.Larson@ed.gov>
> > To: "'david'" <barbedwireblack@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:02 PM
> > Subject: RE: one day format
> >
> >
> > > Most people don't really care and won't appreciate you
> > revealing what you
> > > had in the exam because they feel it lessens the value and
> hard work of
> > > others. I agree that there is potential to do that but.......
> > >
> > > I don't want to get anything started here, or get flamed all
> the way to
> > > hell, however..........
> > >
> > > If you reveal that in your lab question number X asked you to
> > do such and
> > > such you are violating the confidentiality agreement. The NDA actually
> > > applies only to individuals that are already certitified.
> > >
> > > Check it out. Paragraph 8 Section c
> > >
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/cert_agreement.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > Furthermore the confidentiality agreement states that you will not
> > disclose
> > > questions or answers in the exam or the content of exam
> materials. ie.
> > > Question number x stated this. Or this was my topology, things of that
> > > nature.
> > >
> > > Saying you had to do OSPF with authentication does not break the
> > > confidentiality agreement (as far as my understanding in dealing w/
> > Cisco).
> > > That does not disclose a question, an answer or the content of exam
> > > materials. Everyone knows you could get OSPF and therefore
> you need to
> > know
> > > all the knobs for OSPF.
> > >
> > > If you said in the exam in section 3 I had to do ospf w/
> > authentication in
> > > area 0 which was router x, y, and Z then you have a problem.
> > >
> > > I have discussed this with Cisco before when assisting with a lab prep
> > > course and this is basically what they had said. They also stated that
> > > anything that is already public knowledge is not breaking the
> > > confidentiality agreement. Therefore since the blueprint for the exam
> > talks
> > > about OSPF, saying you had OSPF is not a violation. Again
> saying you had
> > > ospf between routers x and z and giving away topology info is!!
> > >
> > > That is my understanding. We almost all know what we will get
> > in the exam
> > > (just watching this list is the best indication). It is the
> > combination of
> > > items, knobs, technologies and topologies and how they are mixed that
> > makes
> > > the exam hard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: david [mailto:barbedwireblack@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:44 PM
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: one day format
> > >
> > >
> > > so if i tell somebody that during my lab
> > > i had to configure ospf authentication
> > > that would be a NDA violation?
> > > Cisco says that anything in the 12.1 IOS is
> > > fair game except for the topics that have been
> > > excluded.
> > > So why can't you tell someone that your lab
> > > included a topic that is in on the DOC CD.
> > >
> > > Configuring OSPF authentication can be pretty
> > > complicated seen a lot of posts on it.
> > > telling someone would not alleviate the
> > > time and effort needed to correctly implement
> > > this feature in a test environment or live production.
> > >
> > > I beleive the NDA is supposed to be a way to keep
> > > people from memorizing the exact test without
> > > knowing or understanding the technologies.
> > > To stop things like the MCSE transcender phenomenon.
> > > Thus guaranteeing some degree of competency
> > > in the individuals who attain certification.
> > >
> > > I beleive it would be impossible to memorize
> > > scenarios for the CCIE lab without a good
> > > understanding of the features, caveats, and
> > > interworkings of the Cisco IOS.
> > >
> > > which i beleive the certification is trying
> > > to discern if you have this knowledge or not.
> > >
> > > I could be wrong happens lots of times.
> > >
> > > thanks for the feedback,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "@ Home NetMail" <tveillette@home.com> wrote:
> > > > Absolutely an NDA issue, anything specific, and
> > > > configuring a router as a
> > > > tftp is very specific. As long as you are going
> > > > after the 15th anything in
> > > > 12.1 can be tested.
> > > >
> > > > As for the IP addressing, it will be crystal clear
> > > > once the proctor brief's
> > > > you and
> > > > you get started. IP addressing will be a non-issue
> > > > at this level, at least
> > > > so far, as
> > > > they stated in the CCIE webcast a while back, there
> > > > aren't any installed
> > > > issues...
> > > > YET.
> > > >
> > > > -Todd
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: david david <barbedwireblack@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:31 AM
> > > > Subject: one day format
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > who has taken the new 1 day format?
> > > > >
> > > > > i'm not quite sure what to expect.
> > > > > they say the ip addressing is already done for
> > > > you.
> > > > > does that mean the routers are proconfiged or are
> > > > > they just on the diagram. not sure.
> > > > > trying to find out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some people have elluded to obscure topics but
> > > > > no one will say what kind of topics.
> > > > > It shouldn't be NDA to say that ( being able
> > > > > to configure a router as a tftp server was a topic
> > > > )
> > > > > Should it?
> > > > > Do anybody you have any idea what these
> > > > > obscure topics are.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks in advance,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:11 GMT-3