Attendees: Michael Shaughnessy, Peter Adamy, James Monti, Jonathan Gallishaw, William Fiske, Sharon Hussey, Nathan Wood and Lee Rabbitt

Approval of September 17, 2004 minutes:
Mike moved to accept the minutes, Bill seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

New Business

Unfinished Business

Policy for supporting video-bridged activities

• Sharon opened the discussion and presented the proposed policy.
  
• Bill suggested the addition of a line in the policy to the effect that there is some obligation on the requesting entity's part to have an identified person to act as the external project leader
  
• Mike wondered if this has any relation to an event that might be RINET-sponsored. It was generally agreed that sponsorship on RINET's part is the vast exception to the rule. In the unusual event that RINET were to co- sponsor a videoconference, our role would still be similar although we might take on more marketing and coordination responsibilities. In general we work with a sponsoring entity's project leader.
  
• Jonathan suggested that the document be more explicit in stating that people outside of RINET must step up and orchestrate a VTC event. RINET cannot operate as technology staff for other entities. We do, however, want to help districts build internal capacity.
  
• Lee mentioned that perhaps RINET should run a scholarship to go to the national Polycom conference next year-- $1000. The teacher who went this year could give a mini-course this year with Pam.
  
• Lee also noted that superintendents need to get this message.
  
• Jim Monti clarified that a coordinator arranges to have the videobridge available; RINET simply runs the bridge.
  
• Bill mentioned that maybe we need to focus on building capacity rather than selling it to an audience that isn't ready.
  
• Mike asked: what is RINET's role? Perhaps we should have a session on what it takes to put on a videoconference.
  
• Lee recommended another videoconferencing conference in Feb. to be announced at the Tech Symposium. RINET could present on what it takes to put on a videoconference at the conference.
  
• Bill: This policy should be an appendix at that training.
  
• Lee discussed upgrading the bridge software, so the bridge can be managed by districts.
  
• Jim M. suggested that bridging should be part of our fee structure.
  
• Sharon: How do we make decisions about how to use our time and resources?
  
• Mike asked: Why not use the I2 commons rather than providing our own bridging?
  
• Sharon noted that it cost RINET $17,000 to maintain the bridge this year. Some change will need to be made in the upcoming year, because it doesn't make financial sense to keep trying to upgrade this bridge.
  
• Sharon thought we should table the technical discussion of bridging until Pam can advise the board.
  
• Mike had a concern with only partially offering a service-which is what he feels the proposed policy would do. We are looking for even more specific guidelines-what RINET will do and what districts will do, this is our deliverable, and so on.
  
• Peter suggested 2 documents-protocol for requesting our time (second part of current document)-and acceptable use is the top set of bullets.
  
• Bill: better approach-bottom piece is document plus a preface about building capacity in districts - here's what you do, here's what we do… in other words: Responsibility of technical coordinator - responsibility of RINET
  
• Bill: part of what we do is to provide workshops and RINET will coordinate with your technical contact
  
• The board will revisit this discussion when a fine- tuned version of the guidelines/policy is available.

Reports

• Sharon introduced the new Database/Systems Administrator, Nathan Wood. The Board Members introduced themselves to Nathan.
  
• Nathan spoke briefly about his background and the process of purchasing datacenter hardware. He said that there are benefits of buying both hardware and software from Maximus. But there may be significant savings of initial cost if we buy hardware from another vendor. If you factor in support and certified reliability, Maximus might really be sole source for both. The decision has not yet been made.
  

Considerations for 2005-2006 Bandwidth Pricing
Eligible products list

• Managed firewalls are now an eligible service and will be a category on our pricelist
  
• Incidentally, the audit found that RINET filtering worked really well, better than local solutions.

Forecasted demand & Forecasted expenses

• We will be getting more information on this in the near future.
  
• Bill states concern about RIDE budget and not receiving expected funds collected by PUC.
  
• Mike: Pool hasn't grown in 5 years, and what about cell services? Expanded funding sources-wireless.
  
• Lee asked if this might be a situation in which RISTE could help by being politically active. If so, RISTE needs to develop talking points and a brief history of the program. After all, districts are not even asking for more, they are asking for what was promised. What are the most critical issues to raise with a legislator?
  
• RISTE can provide key people with info about how school districts operate, here's how we deal with data, here's how students get content.
  
• The history of the program is essentially the preface to article forty under the PUC.
  
• RINET needs to keep in mind whether there will be funding for the things that districts are asking for
  
• Lee mentioned that selling back purchased equipment and then leasing may belong on the next agenda

Technical Symposium

• Bill suggested that it include a quick bit on how to fill out form 470, 471 both for IA and managed services.
  
• Managing QOS was suggested by Lee-asking Atrion or Verizon to present
  

Bill made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Jim M. seconded, and the meeting was adjourned.