• Created by Unknown User (jwerle), last modified on Oct 07, 2011

K20 Initiative Business Meeting
Monday, October 3, 2011
Raleigh, NC


Present:
Kim Brueninger – CCIU, PA
James Werle – Internet2 K20 Initiative
David Underwood – AREON, AR
Carol Willis – TETN, TX
Al Lind – KyRON. KY
Stever Fulkerson - KyRON, KY
Ann Zimmerman – OARnet, OH
Leslie Williamson – Merit Network, MI
Brian Miller – KanREN, KS
Larry Gallery – NYSERNET, NY
Ruthie Blankenbaker – CILC, IL
Bo Lowery – KYRON, University of Louisville, KY
Marla Davenport – TIES, MN
John Korb – TETN, TX
Kari Sauer, EduTech, ND
Kim Owen – NDSU, ND
Elwood Downing – Merit Network, MI
Heather Todorov (notes)


James - Introduction

  • Carol – For our business meeting, we should continue to talk about what we'd like to see our group focus on in the next year, with lots of changes underway (i.e., going to only one Internet2 Member Meeting in 2013).


National K20 Advisory Committee project ideas

  • James: Let's discuss a national project or projects that will involve representatives from each SEGP. Get everyone involved toward a common goal.


Idea #1: Kim B. initially proposed this idea on one of our planning calls. Want to get peoples' reactions. We now have 40 SEGPs with reps in each state. Could ask them to do an environmental scan within their state to identify and showcase K-20 projects or activities that illustrate the value proposition. This is one way for all of us to work together to generate much needed use/value cases.

  • Idea #2: In talking with Tom Rolfes, James put forth a challenge to every SEGP to identify and connect two content providers (National Parks, Historic Sites, National Monuments, Presidential Libraries, museums, science centers, performing arts centers, etc.) in the next 12 months. Let's flood the network with outstanding educational content and experiences that thrive on high performance networks.
  • Idea #3: Let's also develop a catalog of all the informal education organizations connected via SEGP by state (e.g., Mote Marine Laboratory) and those on member campuses. There are many doing educational outreach and offering resources we don't even know about.
  • Ruthie: Once we have that list we could take those already doing something with education outreach through some broadband technology, what would it take to get them to transition to Internet2. Not build from scratch entirely – just moving them from current network platform to Internet2.
  • Marla: Yes, that would also be helpful data for U.S. UCAN. Would cast a spotlight on a problem that we see.
  • Leslie: Internet2 have information on who's connected? [HT: K20 Initiative does a SEGP connectivity survey which relies upon on the R&E Networks supporting SEGPs to provide the data.]
  • TO DO:  James will convene the K20 advisory committee to coordinate these activities.

U.S. UCAN follow up discussion

  • As a result of the U.S. UCAN presentation this morning, let's explore ways  the K20 group can help. We heard some areas where they would like to see some input from us. While not yet ready for nominations, seeking help in establishing the criteria for appointing the temporary U.S. UCAN council.
  • On brainstorming, Carol came up with a few characteristics to bring to the table – interim Council would eventually help get to a permanent Council, help establish processes and parameters. Not sure how many people on the Council or when?
  • James – We could help frame the size and scope of this body.
  • Carol – One of the K20 responses to the report, we presented an idea of how the U.S. UCAN Council could work. Need to review the response that was submitted. Choose a representative for each sector, much like the K20 Executive Committee as the 'working group' representing the larger K20 community. Need to expand to also cover Public Safety and Healthcare CAI constituencies.
  • If you are interested in being part of the conversation, 1) specified request to help create temporary Council; 2) also need help/input on the U.S. UCAN funding model for CAIs. If you're willing to set aside some time over the next couple of days, please let us know. Who could lead those side discussions?
  • Ruthie: Submission of potential names – more helpful to define characteristics. James – both. offering names would be helpful, but first probably best to start by establishing attributes for an ideal Council member across sectors - K-12 rep, library rep, community college rep.
  • Some attributes cross over (i.e., opinion leader in the community, either locally or regionally).
  • Al: Are there 8 verticals over the CAI groups? James: yes, there are 8, per Appendix 4 of Task Force Report.
  • Kim: Got the impression that maybe the temporary Council may be further refining the characteristics and then result in a call for nominations.
  • Al: Right now, we need to come up with names for the temporary Council.
  • Larry: Do they need to be Internet2 members to be nominated? Carol – we'd guess "no" as some sectors not yet even involved with Internet2.
  • James: Any reason to confine ourselves to Internet2 members?
  • Ruthie – don't disenfranchise CAI representatives.
  • Larry: ISTE, CoSN and others should be considered as part of the group too, for external feedback on attributes/nominations.
  • James – It would be great to take a first cut at the attributes (and names?), send them to Mark and Mike in the next few days.
  • Can we carve out a bit of time while in Raleigh to discuss further?
  • Carol mentioned the draft text of the K20 response to the Task Force report (June 27) – could be a starting point and shouldn't take long to draft our list.
  • Who has cycles or time to participate this week?
  • Participants: Kim, Ann, Ruthie, David, Bo, Kim (until Tues afternoon) and Larry. Could draft and distribute to the entire group for comment.
  • What time of day for meeting? This afternoon – 4:00-5:30 in 305B.
  • Ann: Lots of issues around finances because there are no operational expenses once U.S. UCAN is developed.
  • Larry: That's why they're looking at SEGP fees ($2M) and may re-evaluate everyone's dues.
  • Elwood: With BTOP, we're seeing our operational costs going down, but lots of concern with what's going on with Internet2 seeing our network connection costs going up as a result of U.S. UCAN and that's a big concern.
  • Carol: What did you hear Mike or Mark say today about the characteristics of how to start temporary Council or about funding? What did you think they were asking in regard to funding – just ideas on restructuring fees, SEGP, etc.?
  • Elwood: Just taking a pulse check to see how people respond to questions on funding – i.e., each school paying into funding won't happen. Need value proposition to communicate the request for funding.
  • Carol: Do we need a breakout group re a 'pulse check' on funding?
  • Elwood: At Merit, we don't charge extra for SEGP – just roll into overall connection fees. How do we absorb that under current pricing for our services?
  • Larry: If U.S. UCAN will carry commercial traffic – we (NYSERNet) got out of the commercial business. We can't go to members to request that they subsidize commercial costs.
  • Carol: Is the assumption that Internet2 fees would go up because new 100G network is more costly to support?
  • Bo: For U.S. UCAN/Internet2, "revenue neutral" doesn't mean any increases in fees for some and decreases for others.
  • Ann: What's the plan for Mark? His term is up in January and they're hoping for continuity of leadership to have permanent ED in place immediately prior to that to ensure a smooth transition.
  • Carol: If they were to say that Internet2 fees weren't going to increase, would that change the conversation?
  • Larry: We just need more information. What about a full copy of the grant proposal? We've only been given an Exec Summary. This has been going on for 18 months and still no answers.
  • Elwood: Are U.S. UCAN and Internet2 coming to the table as complementary organizations? At leadership level, are the two organizations tied? What about opportunity cost that will have to be given up in order to do more?
  • Two orgs will be set up side-by-side, but separate/distinct along with Internet2, U.S. UCAN and InCommon. Shared leadership?
  • Bo: Safe to say that these are different lines of business that could operate independently from one another. James: there would have to be a compelling fiscal case in place for that to make sense.
  • Marla: How many people are they looking for? Need both the technical and end user, and applications sides represented (i.e., 3 reps per vertical).
  • Elwood: U.S. UCAN has an opportunity to break down barriers and allow Internet2 to continue to be a membership organization, while U.S. UCAN can be best represented by R&E networks. U.S. UCAN is an opportunity to open up participation in Internet2 across a much larger group of users not currently represented.
  • Convene in 305B at 4:00 today for further discussion.  The group will finalize the list and James will submit to Mark for his feedback.
  • Thanks everyone!
  • No labels