UK MANs Group
DRAFT Notes of Meeting held at ULCC on 9 October 2001
Present:
| Dave Vinograd (Convenor) | - |
| Phil Brady (Deputy Convener) | North Wales MAN |
| Mick Kahn (Secretary) | London Metropolitan Network |
| Roger Williams | South Wales MAN |
| Tim Robinson | NetNorthWest |
| Linda McCormick | ClydeNet |
| Kit Powell | BWEMAN/SWERN |
| Colin Tennent | MidMAN |
| Jem Taylor | UHI |
| Chris Cheney | EastNet |
| Mark Toole | Kentish MAN |
| Barry Forde | C&NL MAN |
| Malcolm Bain | FaTMAN |
| David Stedham | North Wales MAN |
| John Linn | AbMAN |
| Denis Russell | NorMAN |
| Ian Griffiths | EMMAN |
| Scott Currie | EaStMAN |
| Bob Day (part of meeting) | UKERNA |
| Tim Kidd (part of meeting) | UKERNA |
| Pat Crocker (part of meeting | JISC TAU |
Apologies were received from:
| Mike Byrne | LeNSE |
The notes of the meeting held on 4 July 2001 at ULCC were accepted as an accurate record of the meeting
2.1 Funding model
Mick Kahn had circulated the spreadsheet giving the figures behind the MAN funding model. Tim Kidd had provided LMN with a detailed breakdown of the telecomms calculations for LMN and could do so for other MANs on an individual basis if required.
2.2 FE connections
The model for increased bandwidth and additional connections for FE colleges was still unclear. The distinction between HE and FE is likely to disappear with the new charging model to be introduced in August 2002, but the plans for this now appeared to be held up. The new model being proposed has a fixed part and a variable part dependent on bandwidth available and bandwidth used. It was noted that the LSC had indicated that it would absorb charges and that Scotland and Wales may need to make decisions earlier.
UKERNA are distinguishing between bandwidth to the MAN and bandwidth to JANET. The first is the physical connection and it is up to the MAN what is provided. The bandwidth to JANET will be monitored by UKERNA and if it goes above the specified threshold, then the FEC will be required to pay for a higher bandwidth connection. Clarification is also needed for the case where an FEC has two connections to the MAN. Mick Kahn will seek further clarification from UKERNA.
2.3 Netsight
Roger Williams had circulated information on Netsight.
Two MANs had signed contracts – AbMAN as an RPAN and LMN as an RDN for one year.
A number of MANs were signing letters of intent because the formal signing was being held up by company formation.
The only major issue was the potential for HEIs and FECs to sue the MANCo. Denis Russell had circulated the advice that NorMAN had received from its lawyers. In line with the advice from DLA, they proposed a Network Services Agreement with each connected organisation. There was concern about the difficulty of getting this in place with each HEI/FEC and it was suggested that it could be incorporated into the UKERNA agreement with sites.
The Group thanked Scott Currie for his presentation at the UKERNA/JISC workshop. The workshop had been well reported elsewhere. Linda McCormick had circulated a paper from Geoff Mullen.
Chris Cheney reported that the DTI had not yet put their proposals out for consultation due to lack of resource. It is now likely that major changes to Oftel and licences will take place before this is resolved. The Group will monitor developments.
6.1 Network Services Agreements
It was noted that UKERNA and the UK MANs Group had received conflicting advice from lawyers regarding the need for a Network Services Agreement with sites. UKERNA would be revising its agreement with HEIs and also putting agreements in place with FECs. It was likely to be in the form of standard terms and conditions. The best way forwarded would probably be to include the MAN agreements in the UKERNA agreement. The need for parts specific to particular MANs was noted.
A small subgroup will work with UKERNA to resolve this. If legal advice for the MANs is required, then the JISC will be approached to fund further work from DLA.
Action: Ian Griffiths and Denis Russell
6.2 Transition planning
Tim Kidd tabled a draft paper on transition planning and invited comments.
6.3 Sponsored connections
Bob Day proposed that, in future, sponsored connections should predominantly be provided by MANs and that the charge should be based on the cost of JANET transit. There would be cases where it was appropriate for the physical connection and support to be provided by a MAN member. It will be necessary to seek the views of individual institutions as well as MANs.
In developing a new model it would be necessary to balance the cost to ensure that it was an attractive service and that there was no cross subsidy. It would also be necessary to ensure that the arrangements could be adequately monitored. In addition the model needed to be affordable for all parties and to be predictable for the lifetime of a telecomms contract.
A small subgroup will work with UKERNA to develop proposals.
Action: Mick Kahn and Scott Currie
Pat Crocker made a presentation on the work of the JISC TAU and the JANET SLA.
It was agreed that a small subgroup should be included in the negotiations as advisors to UEKRNA. This would mainly be carried out by email with 2 or 3 meetings in London.
Action: Phil Brady and Colin Tennant
There was a lively discussion a range of SLA issues. The fixed budgets were noted, so that changes in the SLA could only reflect changes in service that could be brought about by improved efficiency, technology developments or changed priorities. There was an important issue of managing user expectations. Pat Crocker reported that FECs had backed off from a requirement for 24 x 7 cover. It was suggested that there may need to be some regional variation within the national standard to reflect local culture and requirements.
Pat Crocker also invited input to the SLA revision process from the user perspective. The Group considered that this would generally be provided by others bodies.
David Vinograd offered to continue as Convenor on a voluntary basis, initially for one year. The Group accepted this proposal and also agreed that Phil Brady should continue as Deputy Convenor.
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 15 January 2002 at ULCC. The following meeting is provisionally arranged for Tuesday 16 April 20002 in Belfast.
LMN had not won the London Grid for Learning tender. The main reason had been that LGfL had preferred to contract with a commercial organisation that offered similar value, but the charging model for a JANET connection had been a contributory factor. An RDN contract had been signed for one year, after which LMN would move to being an RPAN.
NetNorthWest reported that Robin McDonough had been appointed as part time CEO.
Welsh Networking Ltd would soon be incorporated with David Harrison working for it 2 days a week.
EastMAN would be operating as a consortium.
AbMAN was now a company and had signed an RPAN contract.
NorMAN will be a consortium lead by the University of Newcastle. The out of hours cover is being outsourced.
The UHI would be signing an RPAN contract. The UHI and the MANCo were the same, so the network services agreement issue did not apply. They would be continuing to run ATM for some while and could use any Cisco equipment available.
EMMAN reported difficulties in getting UKERNA to fund spare radio equipment.
SWERN were about to sign a contract for a managed ATM service with Telewest. A company limited by guarantee had been approved.
There was no other business.