Marriott Airport Hotel, Kansas City, MO

                            Minutes

Introduction.  Approximately 25 representatives of the Great Plains
states and two members of the Advisory Committee attended the
meeting, which was chaired by Jerry Niebaum, Principal Investigator
of the "Great Plains Networking for Earth Systems Science" grant
from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The PACS Connection.  Ken Bishop described the partnership between
the National Computational Science Alliance (University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign), NSF EPSCoR, and The University of Kansas. He
distributed a write-up and a copy of the National Computational
Science Alliance (NCSA) brochure.  The NCSA started operation
October 1, 1997.  Several organizations serve as Partners for
Advanced Computational Services (PACS).  The mission of the PACS
is to make the Alliance appear as a single national resource to
the scientists and engineers it supports.  PACS will provide access
to advanced computational resources, provide user services to the
education and application teams, and attend to the special requirements
of specific research communities.  The University of Kansas is the
center of one of the PACS and shares responsibility with Kentucky
for helping EPSCoR states establish a computational infrastructure
for research support that is on par with the best in the world.
The EPSCoR states east of the Mississippi River will be served by
John Connelly (Kentucky) and the EPSCoR states west of the Mississippi
River will be served by Ken Bishop (Kansas). The University of
Kansas is also a research partner in the NPACI (University of
California at San Diego) through Leonard Krishtalka.

Engineering Team Report.  Rick Summerhill reported that WorldCom,
Sprint, AT&T and Qwest responded to the Great Plains Network (GPN)
Request For Proposal (RFP), which required collocation in Kansas
City and circuits to the six Great Plains EPSCoR (6-GPE) states.
The Engineering Team (ET) deemed that the AT&T bid was unresponsive.
The ET recommends negotiating with Qwest and WorldCom to obtain a
three-year contract and dedicated lines.   One participant recommended
penalty clauses in the contract that would, for example, define
the effects on individual institutions and the GPN if the circuits
are not in place on time.  This means that subcontracts for tail
circuits would need to specify on-time availability.  Another
participant suggested performing due-diligence on the vendors before
one is selected.  Because Williams had a non-compete with WorldCom,
it could not bid until after the close date.   By unanimous vote
(with ND, SD, NE, KS, OK and AR each having one vote), the ET
received authority to proceed with negotiations on January 22 and
23, 1998.

Business Plan Proposal.   Jerry Niebaum distributed a business plan
for the GPN.  It described an organization intended to orchestrate
Internet2 services for the next three to five years.   It was moved
and seconded to adopt the draft business plan as a working document.
The proposed organization's members would receive network services
as a benefit of their subscription.  The group compared this approach
to the strategies used by the Midwestern Higher Education Commission
(MHEC) and the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education
(WICHE) in obtaining services for members.  The group agreed that
one key to success is the ability of an organization to work with
state purchasing officers to become an approved service provider.
A few years ago, North Dakota found it could do better on its own
rather than as a member of a consortium.  The group questioned
whether the proposed organization for the GPN should be a consortium
or a nonprofit corporation. Niebaum suggested beginning as a
consortium, and if appropriate, becoming a nonprofit corporation.
The group discussed contract, liability, billing, cost, overhead
and acceptable use issues before deciding to have its status and
plans reviewed by the attorney at the University of Kansas.
Meanwhile, the 6-GPE states need to establish and operate under a
memorandum of agreement.

Niebaum suggested revising the draft document before forwarding it
to administrators at each participating institution.  Rick Summerhill
guided the group through a detailed review of the draft document,
which resulted in the following decisions.

     Throughout the document, "higher education" will replace
     "education" and "high performance" will replace "next generation".

     The mission in the executive summary will be made congruent
     with the mission in the corporate description and follow it
     with specific goals.

     Throughout the document, "high performance national networking
     projects" will replace "Internet2" where generic, functional
     descriptions are appropriate; Internet2 will remain where the
     specific services are being described.

     A new bullet will be added: "Promote the design and implementation
     of a regional network infrastructure that will satisfy the
     needs of the member institutions associated with the Great
     Plains Networking for Earth Systems Science grant from the
     NSF."

     "Training and instruction" will replace "training".

     The paragraph on members and client networks will be re-written
     to remove the word "profit".

The group interrupted its review of the document to discuss whether
the document under discussion was a business plan, a memorandum of
agreement, or bylaws of a corporation.  Niebaum said a business
plan is a looser document than the bylaws; a business plan states
intent, whereas bylaws state how the plan will be implemented.
Very soon, the states need to reach an agreement in order to transfer
monies budgeted this fiscal year.  Purchasing officers in each of
the 6-GPE states may need a greater understanding of the GPN for
this to occur.  Bonnie Neas said North Dakota will need to demonstrate
benefits (better prices) to obtain funds for participation in an
organization beyond the 6-GPE grant.

The group discussed who should represent each state on the
organization's Board and decided that members in each state should
elect a representative to the Board. The group also discussed
whether the organization would need full time technical staff,
whether it could rely on technical staff at the member institutions
or in each state, whether staff at both levels are necessary, and
whether there is a need for a paid, executive director.  The
Executive Director position would require $25K for half time for
half a year.  Eventually, the position would become full time. Ted
Kuwana suggested the position might be paid through the EPSCoR
programs in the six states for a few years.  The EPSCoR directors
will discuss the possibility of approaching NSF for a supplement
to pay the salary for this position.  The grant co-PI's voted for
the position.

The group reviewed and discussed the sample budget.  Some of the
6-GPE states have already contracted for Internet2 services while
others have not; therefore, dividing costs equally among the states
might not be fair.  Summerhill distributed a spreadsheet showing
monthly costs for infrastructure, circuits, Internet2, and Internet1.
The services and staffing would cost approximately $30K per month
per institution.  The formula is cost-based and assumes institutions
will pay for the services they use.   In addition to the funding
provided by NSF, each institution will be required to pay $9 thousand
per month.  This assumes this connection is used for Internet1.
The initial expense for equipment will start in April or May, and
financial commitments from the institutions will be needed by then.
Rick Summerhill will update the spreadsheet for further review.

Management Schedule.  Jerry Niebaum presented a management schedule
for the project.

January 1 Circuit vendor selection is completed, EPSCoR supplemental
funds are obtained, vBNS proposals are submitted, memorandum of
understanding among Co-PIs

February  Costs and rates determined, staffing levels set, initial
cost (start-up billing), revised business plan to members, establish
volunteer technical corps, write RFQ for equipment, order circuits

March     Board of Directors finalized, RFQ for commodity Internet,
finish architecture for vBNS, billing processes established

April     Equipment decision

June      Install collocated equipment, decide routing and logical
structure of the network, staffing complete for first year

July      Test circuits and equipment, acceptance testing

August 1  Network operational, management structure established,
rates and billing established

Niebaum and Summerhill will refine the timeline and business plan
draft for review by the group.

Adjournment.  Before adjourning, the Engineering Team (ET) asked
members of the group to provide as much information as possible
about the applications that will run on the network so the network
architecture can be designed to accommodate these needs.  The
meeting adjourned mid-afternoon.



Submitted by:

Barbara Paschke
K*STAR NSF EPSCoR