Meeting Minutes

October 20, 2000, 10:00 a.m.

UroCor Office Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room

800 Research Parkway, Suite 350

PARTICIPANTS

OAC Members Present:  J.L. Albert, Phil Applegate; Jim Beavers, Don C. Davis, Don Dale, J.L. Albert and Susan McVey

OAC Members Absent:  Dennis Aebersold, R.L. Beaty, Kevin King, Terry Laster, Mike Lapolla, Steve Shiever, Gene Thaxton, Jon Walker, Mac Wall and Jim West

Other Staff and Representatives: James Alexander, Michael White, Rusty Muns, Robert Burton, Steve Staton, Dr. Phil Moss, Kurt Snodgrass, Bill Johnson, James Deaton, Mark Bryan and Bill Shafer

WELCOME

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:08 am and facilitated introductions of those in attendance.

Following introductions, the Chair indicated that the minutes would be recorded on the PictureTel H.323 unit and encouraged everyone to speak toward the microphone to assure comments would be recorded.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chair requested motion for approval of the minutes of the May 5, 2000 OAC meeting.  J.L. Albert moved to accept the minutes with no corrections or deletions.  Seconded by Jim Beavers.  Minutes approved by OAC.

REPORT FROM WORKING GROUPS

Marketing

Kurt Snodgrass of OneNet provided the report of the marketing subcommittee.  He indicated that the committee met via teleconference on September 6^th, 2000.  In attendance were Phil Applegate and Mike Lapolla. 

The major focus of the meeting was to address the recent denial of e-rate applications by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) for a number of the Mastermind clients.  It was anticipated that approximately 150 public schools would be denied funding.  The committee felt that it was important to get communications out to those affected by the denials regarding OneNet and its services.  The committee concurred that three major benefits need to be highlighted in the communications.  Mr. Snodgrass provided a copy of the letter sent to 80 Mastermind clients in the OAC member packets for review.  He indicated that OneNet waited until these schools appeared on SLD’s web site as officially being denied funding.  To date, approximately 20 schools have inquired OneNet as a result of the communication.

The marketing subcommittee also discussed development of a one-page “Facts at a Glance” that could be posted on OneNet’s web site.  This is intended to provide the major benefits and highlights of the network – focusing on national groups who may be reviewing state networks.

Other issues and strategies discussed were testimonials and client profiles and a salute to our legislators web page to highlight those lawmakers who have supported OneNet and technology in Oklahoma.  The Chair indicated that it prove beneficial to have the legislators link back to the OneNet site for use by their constituents.

Welcome packet for legislators was another issue discussed by the committee.  This is intended to educate the new legislators, as well as current, on OneNet and the unique benefits it brings to Oklahoma.  The information would be concise and would utilize bullet points.

Securing a section in the Tulsa World “Focus” page was also discussed.  Mr. Snodgrass related that OneNet is waiting for additional schools in the Tulsa area to become clients.  That would enable the article to localize the story by highlighting specific districts and their use of the technologies.

Chair indicated that Senator Haney sent her a letter regarding his meeting with the California State librarian.  The Chair indicated that the letter indicated that the librarian was interested in OneNet and encouraged her to contact the individual for a potential visit to Oklahoma.  An email was issued to the individual in California and a response was returned that, though he did not have plans on coming to Oklahoma, he found our statewide network very interesting and remarkable.

Applications

Jim Beavers indicated that this subcommittee met prior to the OAC meeting on this date and that the entire OAC membership was invited to attend the meeting.  He stated that everyone is getting a better grasp of what OneNet has to offer – but there is still a ways to go.  He related that this was the only meeting this subcommittee has conducted to this point.

Dr. Phil Moss noted that, in addition to the applications working group and OAC membership, the Innovation and Technology subcommittee of the President’s Council also participated.  He related that 3 other Presidents attended the meeting.  Dr. Moss also indicated that he was going to provide the presentation given to the applications working group to the OAC membership who were interested and would work with Kurt Snodgrass in making it available on OneNet’s web site.

Dr. Moss asked others who were in attendance if there were any additional comments. Steve Staton of OETA indicated that it would be beneficial to have the information available to show groups touring his facility.

Chair inquired of the council regarding an application called Blackboard.com.  She indicated that her agency was considering engaging in some distance learning activities and was curious if it was something that was available on state contract or if it were just a tool that could be used over the network.  Dr. Phil Moss indicated that OneNet does not have a statewide agreement for that application, although a proposal has been submitted and is pending.

Dr. Moss indicated that the way the software works is that you can go to their site and use it for free.  The licensing does allow for you to load the software on your servers and provides unlimited disk space. 

J.L. Albert indicated that he was interested in the contract negotiations on Blackboard.  He stated that there are some back office linkages available for an additional fee and they he would like to be able to pay an additional charge to have access to it to link enrollment and billing to the Blackboard software.  He has an interest in both Blackboard and WebCt.  Dr. Phil Moss said that the Oklahoma does have a statewide license for higher education institutions for WebCt and may consider expanding this offering to other OneNet clients who have an interest. 

Chair asked Phil Applegate if he had any sense of what the K-12s might be interested in.  Mr. Applegate related that SDE does not have a statewide policy for web-based courses.  However, a blue-ribbon panel is going meet next month to provide recommendations to the state board.  He stated that they are concerned with political agendas tied to the delivery of instruction and want to assure the highest quality is available.  Mr. Applegate said that SDE is migrating away from H.320 to H.323 and this would provide greater distribution.

Don Davis said that he would be interested in seeing some show and tells with Blackboard and WebCt. 

Finance and Budget

Did not formally meet prior to this meeting, but a smaller group consisting of R.L. Beaty, Jon Walker and James Alexander did meet in Stillwater to discuss financial summaries, but no specifics were developed.  J.L. Albert indicated that he had seen notes that Mr. Walker had taken but they had not been forwarded to him.  The Chair and Bill Shafer were, likewise, unaware of any documentation that resulted from the meeting.  Mr. Albert said he would follow up on this item.

The Chair re-circulated the working group sign-up sheet due to some vacancies and noted that no members of the OAC had signed up for network design.  Members present were encouraged to sign up if they had not already done so.

VISION PROJECT

Bill Shafer, Executive Director of OneNet, asked Phil Applegate to provide an overview of the VISION project as it is defined by the legislature.  Mr. Applegate indicated that the primary goals of the VISION legislation are to create an online, web-based course resource for mathematics – beginning with Algebra 1.  And, if money is appropriated, a secondary element would be rolled into the project that would include an administrative component.  This would be inclusive of various reporting functions, curriculum – much like an e-business model.  Mr. Applegate related that Joe Kitchens, Superintendent at Western Heights, was a major force in the development of the VISION project and securing matching funds.

A bid has been put together for project management but it has not been let.  There has been some difficulty in putting the RFP together.  Though there was a clear idea on where the state wanted to be with the project, it was not clear how it would ultimately get there.  SDE has trained a group of teachers but it is uncertain if they will have the skills to build the product that is desired.  Until the bid is let, not much activity is taking place.

Bill Shafer indicated that OneNet has been working with Joe Kitchens in support of the VISION project.  OneNet has been working with Intel, Dell and Microsoft in an effort to secure private support from each.  At this point in time, one of the companies has committed $600,000 toward the initiative and it is hoped that the others will follow suit.  Mr. Shafer indicated that it was his understanding that these funds would help support the outline of this project and what it is to become.  He stated that OneNet stands ready to support this initiative and that the model currently on the table will provide a seamless application that blends both the accounting and content delivery – ultimately changing the face of education in Oklahoma.  Once developed, this application may even be able to be utilized on a national basis.

In terms of the network itself, Mr. Shafer said that some upgrades have taken place in terms of connectivity to support the 9 schools in the pilot project.  Mr. Applegate stated that Joe Kitchens believes it may be a 4-5 year project and may cost in upwards of $100 million.  Mr. Shafer added that studies have been done that estimate that the education market is worth $2.3 trillion and it is a perfect opportunity for Oklahoma to jump in right now.

Rusty Muns inquired as to how much was appropriated and Mr. Applegate related that $500,000 was appropriated and that $930,000 would ultimately be available through bond funds. 

 

ONENET OPERATIONS REPORT

a)       Communications Update: 

Kurt Snodgrass provided an overview of trade shows that OneNet attended through the spring and the summer.  In addition, he indicated that the new web site is now operational and that additional enhancements such as a distance learning resource page are currently under development.  This page would provide a resource for both K-12 and higher education to post classes that are being offered and those that are needed via H.323.  Phil Applegate added that many of the districts have been hesitant to provide this type of information and hoped that this site would facilitate their participation in the sharing of distance learning information.  Mr. Snodgrass then demonstrated the front-end of the site and indicated that it is in its infancy in terms of overall development.

Another enhancement to the web site described by Mr. Snodgrass was the dynamic network mapping page.  Initially proposed by Mike Lapolla, this map will provide a visual status of the various circuits throughout Oklahoma.  Changing colors indicate various traffic loads and provide real-time information regarding network performance.  The prototype page was demonstrated for the council.

Mr. Snodgrass indicated that a new trade show display had been designed and purchased and that he is working with the major OneNet partners such as Cisco in the development of co-marketing and co-branding strategies.  He stated that through discussions with the company representatives, funds are available for this type of activity and that the process involved submitting a formal marketing plan specific to each strategy.  He also shared copies of reprint of an article on OneNet that ran in a higher education publication titled Syllabus. 

He closed his presentation with a letter from Tony Zodrow of the Omniplex.  Mr. Zodrow presented at the last meeting a grant application specific to a science mentoring program to be funded by Lucent.  The letter articulated that the Omniplex had been denied funding for this particular endeavor and that the Omniplex was pursuing additional funds from other resources and foundations.

b)       Network Update: 

James Deaton, Chief Technology Officer for OneNet began his presentation with an update on Internet2 activities.  He indicated that it was anticipated that the acceptable use policies for Internet2 may be relaxed to accept OneNet as a secondary participant – benefiting the community colleges and the K-12s significantly.  He also related that Oklahoma has the first K-12 secondary participant nationally with Western Heights being sponsored by the University of Oklahoma.  Western Heights will be sharing curriculum with a public school in Fairfax, Virginia.

Mr. Deaton indicated that due to our participation in Internet2, our role in the Great Plains Network (GPN) recently changed.  Since OneNet can reach all of the GPN participants via Internet2, it is not routing any traffic over that specific network – though it does maintain an administrative role.  The GPN connectivity is 1/14^th the size of OneNet’s Internet2 connection.  J.L. Albert added that this decision was also financially driven.  He stated that an EPSCoR grant initially funded Oklahoma’s connectivity to the GPN for earth sciences research and that the grant is coming to an end.  This would result in Oklahoma having to pay full price for the circuits, which would be redundant to the connection to Internet2.  Mr. Albert stated that though a logical decision to break the physical ties to the GPN, Oklahoma reiterated the need to maintain the regional ties for research and collaboration purposes, even if it is through an administrative role.  Mr. Deaton said that 85% of the traffic that once was routed over GPN is better served over OneNet’s Internet2 circuit.

Network congestion was the next issue addressed by Mr. Deaton.  He indicated that the Sprint link is now operational as of August 25^th.  It means that OneNet is now being served by three service providers:  Cable and Wireless, Southwestern Bell and Sprint.  He said that it is working well and he is happy with the utilization levels.

 Mr. Deaton then provided information on filtering.  He said that OneNet was pursuing a contract with N2H2.  The intent of the agreement is to provide OneNet schools who desire to have a contract with N2H2 access to the service through our network – though we will not be making any policy decisions regarding its use.  It is intended that OneNet will simply be the host for the service.

Caching equipment is now installed.  Mr. Deaton indicated that some reengineering is taking place to the core to integrate the caching services – resulting in them being off line at this point.  When they are back online, they will be handling http traffic, streaming and video-on-demand services.  The intent of integrating this service is to speed up popular sites within OneNet.  He added that this goes well with our Akamai service.  Mr. Deaton indicated that Akamai is a content delivery system and we are working on another contract to bring in streaming media via satellite.

Mr. Deaton completed his presentation with potential peering options with some of the broad-band providers to offset some of the bandwidth issues resulting from Napster.  The peering arrangement with the national At Home and Roadrunner networks will result in hardware and circuit savings.  A similar peering arrangement is being investigated with Southwestern Bell’s DSL service.

Bill Johnson of OneNet indicated that the network pays approximately $270 per megabit for Internet connectivity.  Universities who purchase 100 Megabit connections are only charged $17.50 for the same connectivity.  Mr. Deaton indicated that the two major universities in Oklahoma are responsible for 70% of the network’s Internet traffic.

J.L. Albert provided additional discussion regarding OSU’s policies regarding Napster traffic.  He indicated that the university does not normally block traffic of this nature.  If abuses are identified, a student will be turned off and receive counseling.  If they agree to abide by the university’s policies, they will be turned back on and have access to the network.

Bill Shafer indicated that OneNet will have to find new and innovative ways to deal with the bandwidth issues created by multi-media applications without modifying the pricing schedule.  OneNet’s concern is to cover its costs.  In time, some “pay as you go” pricing structures may have to be developed.  OneNet is also looking at hosting an application for the Tax Commission.  An agreement is being developed that would allow OneNet to recover the costs of these activities.  He added that this is something that OneNet has not spent a great deal of time on due to the network being so young.  Now that the infrastructure is in place, efforts now will focus on applications and their development.

J. L. Albert inquired how OneNet is dealing with the legal aspects as they relate to changing policies specific to Internet Service Providers.  Bill Shafer indicated that OneNet utilizes Regents’ attorneys in these instances.  OneNet’s goal is very similar to OSU’s.  OneNet does not want to be a cop, we want to let everybody in and let the clients be responsible and conduct their business.  Mr. Albert added that the Napster issue is a prime example where the law has not caught up to the new technology.  Depending on how the law is interpreted, it could vastly affect how OneNet as an organization operates.

Mr. Shafer related a similar issue specific to advertising.  A K-12 inquired as to OneNet’s policies regarding advertising on the client’s web pages.  Though it would be the school’s site, server and technology, OneNet does not have established policies regarding advertising.  Therefore, the issue was referred to Regents’ attorneys for review and policy development.  It may be that OneNet includes language in its acceptable use policies to make them aware of their responsibilities specific to unrelated business income tax (UBIT).

The Chair inquired of Mr. Shafer how OneNet would be involved in the State portal.  Mr. Shafer indicated that the state will end up with one or two portals at a minimum.  The goal of the State portal is similar to OneNet in that it will not be designed to control content.  We currently don’t know how everything is going to be set up at this point – a business and an education portal are being discussed informally right now.

Rusty Muns indicated that the Career Technology Centers were concerned about a memo issued by the Office of State Finance.  He said it appeared that some may have misinterpreted it, but it did seem a little heavy handed in terms of look and feel of agency’s web pages.  Bill Shafer indicated that certification issues like electronic signatures require some structure and uniformity.  Mr. Shafer related that he understands the concerns of the agencies and that they will be taken into consideration.

(General discussion on electronic signatures and who will maintain authority over them)

ONENET MISSION STATEMENT

The Chair directed the council to the mission statement included in their packets and indicated that it was developed by consultants hired by the State Regents to do an analysis of OneNet.  Dr. Phil Moss added that these are the consultants’ words, not OneNet’s interpretation.  OneNet wanted to share this with the council to get their input on the mission statement.  It is a starting point.  The intent is not to wordsmith this today, but to begin the dialogue.

Chair stated that responses to the mission statement development should be handled through the OAC listserv with additional discussion at the next meeting.

LIBRARY DATABASE FUNDING REQUEST

Dr. Phil Moss pointed out that this specific agenda item was not at the request of the Chair, but rather OneNet.  The Chair related that the Oklahoma Department of Libraries currently pays a significant amount of money for statewide library databases that are housed on OneNet’s servers and available to anyone in the state.  Statewide, there are 1,385 registered entities utilizing the service – with a majority being K-12 sites.

This year, ODL is going out on bid to secure a new, three-year license.  Due to the high utilization of the databases, ODL anticipates a higher bid for the service.  This year’s funding request for the database is $750,000.  The Chair stated that many states provide this service and that South Carolina was provided $1.5 million to secure their offerings.  ODL currently receives $325,000 from the State Legislature.

Since most of the institutions utilize the service, the Chair wanted to make the council aware that their staff may be asking about it.  J. L. Albert shared support of the databases and related issues specific to authentication for access control.  The Chair shared information that Indiana is utilizing Netscape Digital Signatures to overcome the problems.  Mr. Albert indicated that OSU uses proxy servers at this point in time.

Bill Shafer asked if there are any other applications that may benefit the clients of OneNet.  Dr. Phil Moss described Merlot and its effort to develop content through academic systems.  The Chair stated that it is an advantage to be a member of the OAC due to the information that is shared at the meeting.

OTHER BUSINESS

Dr. Phil Moss provided an article from the New York Times article on filtering.  He emphasized he was not advocating filtering, but rather wanting to provide it as an informational piece.  Phil Applegate indicated that the Senate committee recommended that filtering not be put in place because the software was ineffective.

NEXT MEETING

The Chair inquired of the council if it desired to meet more frequently.  No response was received.  The Chair suggested that January might be a good time.

The next meeting was tentatively set for January 26th, 2001 at 10:00am unless otherwise notified.

ADJOURN

Motion to adjourn made by J. L. Albert and seconded by Don Davis.  The OAC adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

 

 

 

	Comments or questions regarding OneNet: webmaster@onenet.net
	Copyright 2000-2001 by OneNet®