Present:

Apologies were received from:

1. Notes of Previous meeting

There were no corrections to the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 October 2000.

The MAN companies issues documents had been placed on the UK MANs web site.

Dave Vinograd reported that he had now engaged the lawyer to advise UK MANs during the contract negotiations with UKERNA. Garrets staff had moved to DLA, but the individual providing the advice remained the same. The JISC had agreed to an increase in budget to £30,000, of which more than £5,000 had already been spent.

It was noted that the tax issues had not yet been properly addressed and that their importance still needed to be brought to the JISC’s attention.

Action: Dave Vinograd

2.1 Status of the Group and funding

Dave Vinograd proposed that the UK MANs Group should have a more formal status.  A wide range of opinions for and against the proposal were expressed, including the advantage of a stronger voice and the disadvantage of bureaucracy. A related, though separate, issue was whether it should introduce subscriptions in order to enable it to undertake activities that could not be covered by donated effort from members. On view expressed was that such things should be funded by the JISC.

No consensus was reached, so it was agreed to continue operating as at present.

2.2 Officers

Dave Vinograd reported that he would be leaving City University at the end of April and hence would be resigning as a board member of London Metropolitan Network Ltd. He would be happy to continue working with the UK MANs Group as Convenor or in another capacity. The Group agreed that he should chair the next meeting and agreed to appoint Phil Brady as Deputy Convenor to cover Dave Vinograd’s absence over the Summer. The situation will then be reviewed.

The Group expressed much appreciation for Dave Vinograd’s efforts in establishing and convening the Group.

3. Contracts with UKERNA (a)

The Group discussed the status of contract negotiations in advance of UKERNA joining the meeting.

Dave Vinograd reported that the UK MANs lawyer had recommended against signing the contract in its present form. A set of axioms had been prepared and agreed with UKERNA, which would be used as a basis for redrafting the contract.

It was noted that the North Wales MAN, LeNSE and LMN would need some interim arrangement in order to be able sign new contracts and also that EMMAN, BWEMAN and others would need financial commitments from UKERNA in order to progress with upgrades.

It had now been agreed that the contract was based on an agreement for public grant funding rather than a commercial contract. It was noted that some elements of the RDN contract might be more like a commercial contract.

4. DTI Licenses

Mick Kahn had circulated a summary of concerns with the license proposed by the DTI. The license was difficult to understand and did not address all the areas where the HEI might need licenses. It was necessary to consider the requirements of individual HEIs as well as MANs and voice as well as data. The Group could not represent all these constituencies, but it was felt that a single set of negotiations would be most effective for the HE community. It was agreed that a new negotiating group should be established, which should be augmented as appropriate by representatives from UCISA and the various voice interest groups. With the requirement for these interfaces in mind, the following membership was agreed: Chris Cheney, Tim Robinson and Scott Currie.

Mick Kahn will write to DTI, summarising the Group’s main concerns and proposed approach and hand over the responsibility for liaison with the DTI and Oftel to Chris Cheney.

Action: Mick Kahn

Dave Vinograd would approach JISC re funding for expert advice on the license.

Action: Dave Vinograd

5. Sponsored Connections

Bob Day and Tim Kidd from UKERNA joined the meeting at this stage.

At the last meeting it had become clear that there was not a consistent picture of the position of MANs regarding sponsored connections. Following discussions with UKERNA, Mick Kahn had produced a paper on the current situation and possible models for the future. Bob Day pointed out that these were not formal proposals.

In the short term, sponsored connections licenses could only be obtained by HEIs, but UKERNA had no problem with the actual connection being delivered by a MAN company.

Bob Day agreed that the current arrangements where not robust and said that sponsored connections would be reviewed in the overall charging review. The current charging scheme would be in place until July 2002, but the intention was to agree a new scheme by July 2001 in order that it can be shadowed for a year.

It was noted that there was currently an inconsistency in that a sponsored connection via an FEC would not incur transatlantic charges whereas a connection via an HEI would. Bob Day said that the intention was for FE and HE to be treated the same under the new charging scheme.

A new model was discussed whereby the MAN was charged for transit bandwidth for sponsored connections and only a small administrative fee for each license. The idea would be to fix a notional bandwidth and only measure it occasionally rather than a direct usage charge. It was proposed that the new scheme should meet the legitimate aspirations of the MANs, be easy to administer and have a defensible financial model. The need for stability was also expressed because of contracts that MANs would have with their customers and telcos.

There was discussion on whether sponsored connections should be provided by MANs or HEIs/FECs. Whilst there were obvious advantages of providing all connections by the MANs, it was recognised that this would not be appropriate in all circumstances and that the funding councils would probably not wish to take the option away from institutions totally.

The question of providing transit bandwidth on JANET for activities that fell outside the scope of sponsored connections (i.e. non educational activities) was discussed. If this were provided, UKERNA would charge at a higher rate than for the bandwidth for sponsored connections.

The provision of connections to LEAs was being handled outside the sponsored connection arrangements and was along the lines of the new model discussed (i.e. charging for transit bandwidth). A number of MANs already had or were considering this. James Hutton at UKERNA is responsible for LEA connections. It was possible that this arrangement would be extended to other local authority learning activities (e.g. public libraries).

It was noted that sponsored and other non HEI connections to RDNs would need to be covered in the contract with UKERNA.

6. Contracts with UKERNA (b)

Dave Vinograd and Bob Day explained the current position of the negotiations. The need for letters of intent between UKERNA and MANs that had to sign telco contracts was highlighted again.

Bob Day expressed his concern as to whether the UK MANs Group was an effective collective bargaining mechanism and to whether some HEIs wanted to engage in the process. The Group felt that the current plan was the best route to the baseline contract and that this would considerably reduce the negotiation between UKERNA and individual MANs.

All agreed that the contracts could not be signed by 31 March2001.

UKERNA was waiting for information from the UK MANs Group on overhead costs and SLA elements that were inappropriate to the service.

There was a wide ranging discussion on the major issues still outstanding. These were to be summarised in a separate paper for submission to the JCN meeting on 9 February.

A meeting was to be held later in the day between UKERNA, members of the UK MANs negotiating team and the JCN Chair to feed into the JCN meeting in order that a decision could be made as to how to proceed with the negotiation of the MAN contracts with UKERNA.

Monday 14 May in Cardiff

The meeting did not have time to hear news from MANs or to consider any other business.