1989.12.12 WiscNet Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
The meeting was called to order at 10:06 am in the Glass Room, S.N. Pickard Commons, Ripon College by Tad Pinkerton, chair. The attendees of the meeting are listed in an attachment to the minutes.
(I) Welcome
The Board was welcomed by Douglas Northrop, Dean of the College.
(II) Status of the NSF Proposal
Tad Pinkerton updated the Board on the NSF proposal. The funding is not expected from NSF until sometime in January. A typographical error was found in the NSF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET UPDATE document. In the third paragraph on the first page, the number $2080.6 billion should be $2080.6 million.
(III) Legal Status of WiscNet
Elwin Cammack and Tad Pinkerton met with UW legal staff, who felt that there was not a lot of advantage for WiscNet to incorporate unless there are significant resources or staff associated with the organization. A consortium can legally own equipment such as routers. NSF may actually own some or all of the equipment initially, anyway. The question of who is responsible for insurance of the equipment was raised.
The liability issue is not a problem for Wisconsin public institutions because of a state law restricting liability against state departments. The issue is not so clear for private institutions. It was suggested that each private institution check their individual liability insurance, and to ensure that the insurance recognizes that WiscNet activities are considered institutional business.
UW legal staff are working on a consortium statement that will be very close to a statement of incorporation. This will permit subsequent incorporation in an uncomplicated fashion if and when it becomes required.
(IV) Fee Allocation Spreadsheet
A new budget worksheet was included with the agenda. This worksheet assumes 100% NSF contribution of requested funds. UW-System has indicated a special assistance of $36,000 each for the first two years, and a possible, but uncommitted, assistance of $100,000 each for years three and four. UW-Extension was added to the worksheet, and UW-Stevens Point and UW-Centers were combined into a single entry. UW-Madison's costs for CICnet were included as an addendum.
The distribution model of fees among the institutions was changed so that it was based 50% on institutional budget and 50% on "workload", which is represented by student FTE count. The theory behind this change is to balance out the allocation among high-budget institutions with a small number of students, and low-budget institutions.
Subsequent discussion centered around UW-Madison's contribution. While a budget worksheet showing UW-Madison as a contributing institution under the standard fee model was not made available, it was stated that were UW- Madison's fees to be computed using the model, they would come very near or slightly below the costs of the CICnet connection. UW-Madison is a charter member of CICnet and is thereby required to assist in balancing the CICnet budget. It was argued that the UW-Madison connection to CICnet is a requirement for WiscNet to be connected to the Internet and that the entire cost of the CICnet connection should be covered as a part of the WiscNet budget. It was also argued that UW-Madison was committed to CICnet anyway, and that most industrial partnerships and research would affect UW-Madison foremost, so UW-Madison should not simply write off its CICnet contribution as its WiscNet contribution.
The discussion then turned to the fee distribution model. It was suggested that the discussion be focused on the model components, and that we should not worry about specific fees at this time. A general consensus was that the model of distributing costs based on 50% institutional budget and 50% student FTE count was fair. The major concern remaining was how the CICnet costs should be handled.
It was suggested that the Executive Committee meet with UW-Madison and UW-System representatives to create a more well-defined model and return with this to the next Board of Directors meeting. Included in this discussion should be an alternative means to obtain access to the Internet and a justification of CICnet access. This suggestion was accepted by consensus by the Board.
(V) Report on the Technical Committee
Ed Mathay reviewed the first meeting of the Technical Committee. Several subcommittees were formed, including:
Network Topology
Network Software
VAX/VMS
Campus Infrastructure
The committee reviewed the overall structure of the network and the activities of the first Board of Directors meeting. Subsequent discussions took place around domain names and host security. Each institution is responsible for obtaining their own domain name.
(VI) MACC Facilities Management Proposal
Mike Dorl presented the facilities management proposal included with the agenda. The proposal was intended to be moderate; somewhere between the high-end support provided to CICnet by MERIT, and a minimal level of support. The proposed costs are prorated by fiscal year, and are included in the budget worksheets that have been distributed. Justification for the cost of the first year, especially for installation, was requested. Tad Pinkerton also agreed to distribute a copy of the CICnet management agreement.
MACC will test, purchase, and distribute the networking equipment; local institutional staff will install equipment with MACC guidance and work with MACC to identify malfunctioning equipment to be returned to MACC for replacement. MACC intends to maintain spare pieces of equipment and maintain them on a replacement basis. MACC feels that most testing of the network can be done over the network, and there should be little need for extensive test equipment at each site. MACC has established a Network Operations Center (NOC) for the UW-Madison network; it is proposed that this would be used to support WiscNet as well.
A discussion of Part IV, paragraph 2 took place. Concern was voiced over the statement where MACC refuses responsibility when local technical assistance is not available. The primary concern dealt with support of sites that are downstream of the site encountering difficulties. MACC was requested to reword the paragraph.
It was suggested that a problem escalation procedure be developed, so that both MACC and member institutions can know what is expected when network problems arise. It was suggested that regular reporting take place, including financial reports of expenditures and revenue, and a technical performance summary. It was also suggested that an annual review of facilities management rates should take place. Training was requested; MACC indicated that operations manuals and a document set would be provided and seminars for site staff would be given.
(VII) UW-Extension Membership
It was proposed that UW-Extension be accepted as a charter member of WiscNet and be given a seat on the Board of Directors. The justification is that most extension staff are members of UW institutions that are already charter members; that there would be no additional nodes and thereby no additional expense to WiscNet; and that UW- Extension administrative staff have an interest in the network. WiscNet sites were asked in return to provide guest accounts on their local computer systems to support UW-Extension staff that are not resident on a campus. These might include county agents.
M/S/P that UW-Extension be accepted as a charter member of WiscNet and be given a seat on the Board of Directors.
(VIII) Additional Nodes for Charter Members
A research center of UW-Madison at Trout Lake is interested in having a separate node on the network because of its distance from Madison. It was proposed that this facility be permitted access by linking to the nearest node and be charged the cost of connection and on- going costs. The alternative would be to establish a link between the research center and UW-Madison and have the center use the UW-Madison network node. Discussion took place on the difference between this addition and the addition of a new installation. There were strong concerns about the effective management of the topology of the network, and establishing a precedent for inclusion of new nodes. The consensus was that discussions on new nodes should take place under the auspices of the Membership Committee.
(IX) Strategy for New Members
The question was raised whether WiscNet should begin seeking new members now or wait for the network to be up and running. The consensus was that it would be better to wait. The issue was referred to the Membership Committee.
(X) Establishment of Membership Committee
The following members volunteered to serve on the Membership Committee:
James Johnson - UW-Platteville James Schurter - UW-Stevens Point Gerald Isaacs - Carroll College Robert Taylor - Ripon College Michael Dorl - UW-Madison Richard Holtzman - UW-Oshkosh Roi Prueher - UW-Eau Claire (volunteered by Donna Raleigh), Roger Hodek, UW-Green Bay, the at-large member of the Executive Committee, was asked to chair the committee.
Membership on Executive Committee by UW-System It was proposed that Elwin Cammack be made an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee to acknowledge the role that UW-System has taken in the planning and administrative support of WiscNet.
M/S/P that Elwin Cammack be made an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee.
(XI) Topology Subcommittee Report
Mike Dorl reported on the meeting of the Topology Subcommittee of the Technical Committee. An update of line lease costs indicated that WiscNet can probably save about $2,000 per month over the estimates in the NSF proposal. It is assumed at the moment that WiscNet would use Wisconsin Bell for intra-LATA lines and Norlight for inter-LATA lines.
A change was proposed to the initial topology to link UW- Parkside to Marquette, and Marquette to UW-Milwaukee. The purpose was to include Marquette in the backbone rather than being on a tail circuit.
If WiscNet receives 50% of the requested NSF funding, a network could be build for about the same cost with no redundancy. This would make the network much more prone to failure in the case of the failure of an individual line.
Alternatively, one more inter-LATA line could be added to form a square backbone with links to individual nodes coming out as spokes. This would provide improved redundancy for a little higher cost on the backbone, although the reduction of local loops from two to one for most nodes may balance that out. An extension of this alternative would be to use T1 lines as the four inter- LATA lines. The cost of the backbone lines would increase, resulting in improved capacity on the backbone. The four backbone routers might be located at the Norlight point of presence in each LATA, or at a WiscNet site in each LATA.
The goal is to provide the best performance at the lowest line costs. The Topology Subcommittee will continue to explore the alternatives.
Minutes M/S/P to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1989 meeting.
National Net '90 National Net '90, a conference addressing NSFnet and national networking issues, will take place in Washington D.C. in March.
(XII) By-Laws
The question arose as to the role of the Executive Committee in acting on behalf of the Board. This role will be spelled out in the organizational by-laws. The Executive Committee was requested to begin working on the by-laws.
Next Meeting The next meeting of the Board of Directors will take place on Wednesday, February 21, 1990, at UW-Stevens Point.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
John L. Beck Secretary
Attendees - WiscNet Board of Directors Meeting - December 12, 1989
Thomas Alt, Wisconsin Department of Administration
John Beck, UW-La Crosse
Elwin Cammack, UW-System Administration
Michael Dorl, UW-Madison
James Evans, Lawrence University
Carla Garnham, Medical College of Wisconsin
Lee Goldesberry, UW-Parkside
Bradley Gottfried, UWC-Fond du Lac
Chris Hackbart, Edgewood College
Harry Herbert, UW-Stout
Roger Hodek, UW-Green Bay
Richard Holtzman, UW-Oshkosh
Gerald Isaacs, Carroll College
Anne Iwata, UW-System Administration
James Johnson, UW-Platteville
George Kuelks, UW-Milwaukee
C. Edward Mathay, Marquette University
John Nierengarten, UW-River Falls
Tad Pinkerton, UW-Madison
Donna Raleigh, UW-Eau Claire
James Schurter, UW-Stevens Point
Norman Stoner, UW-Whitewater
Robert Taylor, Ripon College
Charles R. Williams, Beloit College