Notes of meeting held on Tuesday 9 November 1999 at City University

Present:

Apologies were received from:

1. Notes of previous meetings

There were no corrections to the minutes of the previous meetings held on 22 June 1999 and 27 September 1999 and no maters arising that were not covered elsewhere in the agenda.

2. SuperJANET4

(A more detailed report of this part of the agenda is being prepared by UKERNA and will be available on the SuperJANET4 web site at http://www.superjanet4.net/regionalisation/ukman09-11-99/index.html)

2.1 Keyhole model

Kevin Hoadly presented the "Keyhole" model for the relationship between the MANs and UKERNA. In this model each MAN could choose to be either a Regional Partner Academic Network (RPAN) or a Regional Distribution Network (RDN). There was a lively discussion on all aspects of the model and its implications. UKERNA considered that it was important that there was a clear distinction between the two options, though some MANs might prefer to be somewhere between the two. With an RPAN, a legal entity for the MAN would be essential, whereas an RDN could be either a legal entity or a consortium.

Most MANs indicated that they would be likely to be an RPAN rather than an RDN, although the RDN model suited EastNet rather better as it was only the availability of funding which had motivated the formation of the consortium.

In both cases the connection policy would be set by the MAN. UKERNA intends that JANET should be able to meet all the external networking needs of the MANs, at an appropriate cost. UKERNA’s preference will be to use the MANs for connection of sites rather than direct connection to JANET, subject to cost effectiveness.

The group considered the model useful, though there was clearly substantial further development required.

2.2 Progress report

Tim Kidd reported on the progress of defining operational standards. Three working groups had been established with members form the UK MANs Group.

It is planned to have the operational standards by the end of December and draft contract text by the end of January. It was proposed that the whole Group should consider the first draft and that a Working Group should negotiate the contract details during February. After that the contracts would be agreed with the individual MANs.

The members of the subgroup will be:

Dave Vinograd (convenor)
Denis Russell
Chris Cheney
Colin Tennant
Ian Griffiths

2.3 Relationship with public libraries

Chris Batt, Chief Network Advisor of the Library and Information Commission gave a presentation on the People’s Network. A copy of the slides is available on http://www.lonman.net/uk-mans/lic/ .

The regional dimension will be important in all public sector networking and the academic MANs were one option for provision of the infrastructure to connect public libraries. Some areas, such as GMING were already connecting public libraries to the MANs and others were exploring the possibilities.

It was agreed that the dialogue should be taken forward between Chris Batt’s team and a subgroup of the UK MANs Group:

Mick Kahn (convenor)
Jim Strom
Phil Brady
plus one other with library expertise

4. Licensing

The DTI were unable to attend the meeting but did now seem keen to address the issue of the licensing position of MANs.

Jeanne Grey had send a letter asking for more information about MANs. This would need to be answered on a per MAN basis, but it was important that the questions were interpreted in the same way by each MAN. With this in mind, each MAN should circulate a draft response and any issues of interpretation in the next week. Each section should be answered a) now and b) for expected future development.

The Group felt that it would be necessary for the whole group to meet with the DTI rather than a subgroup, given the diversity of the MANs.

Phil Brady and Mick Kahn will co-ordinate responses.

5. News from MANs

Kit Powell reported that BWEMAN had renegotiated its telecomms contract to terminate in July 2001 to allow for the SuperJANET4 procurement.

Mike Abel reported that MidMAN would be getting a second SuperJANET connection from Warwick to Nottingham and that spare capacity would be available for MAN to MAN traffic.

Phil Brady reported that Aberystwyth would be connected to Swansea with a 155Mbps radio link. Radio links were also planned for North Wales and an onward connection to Aberystwyth was a possibility to link all of Wales.

John Marshall reported that the SWAN bid to HEFCE for resilience had been unsuccessful. They were connecting FE Colleges and 100 SMEs.

Peter Waller reported that LeNSE will be issuing their tender soon and hope to include FE Colleges.

Edinburgh had investigated the resilience of their network. Immediate action was not planned, but the results would feed into future redesign.

Denis Russell reported that NorMAN were talking to a supplier regarding implementing the HEFCE MAN Initiative.

Mick Kahn reported that the London MAN was well advanced on setting up a company, was actively talking to other sectors and starting the re-procurement process.

Ed Carter reported that YHMAN was including an representative from each of the FE Consortia on their Steering Group, but that the board of the company remained under exclusively HE control.

Jim Strom reported that Network North West were connecting 14 LEAs and that an ERDF project would establish an Advanced Telematics Centre for SMEs.

Various people reported that the connection of FEs to JANET was progressing, but that no formal announcement by the FEFC had yet been made.

A number of MANs mentioned the Schools Broadband initiative.

6. Dates of future meetings

The next meeting will be on Tuesday 8 February 2000 at City University.

The following meeting will in Edinburgh in May 2000, with the date to be arranged by email.

7. Any other business

The long delay in receiving formal notification of funding under the HEFCE MAN Initiative had caused serious problems in many MANs. Phil Brady agreed to take this up at JISC.

UCISA Executive had expressed concern that it did not have formal involvement in MAN issues. The group confirmed its wish to retain its current independent status and did not feel that it could be subsumed within the UCISA structure because members represented networks rather than institutions. It was agreed that close liaison was essential. Overlapping membership ensured this at present. Should this diminish in the future then more formal liaison might be necessary.