1. Introductory Remarks. Chair Michael Scroggins called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM.
2. Approval of Minutes. It was moved and seconded that the minutes from the August 15, 2006 meeting be approved as amended. Approved unanimously. Terry Teale commented that the Washington Learns Steering Committee hearing via K-20 multipoint video conference on September 12th was a success and is the type of event that helps to raise the visibility of K-20 in a positive light.
3. K-20 Executive Director Report. Connie Michener reported that the escrow partners did adopt the K-20 Board recommendations for the Qwest settlement fund-related projects, the money has been transferred into the DIS K-20 account, and the interagency agreements have been signed by each of the project managers. Connie added that projects are all in the process of getting started and moving forward with more status information to follow in the future. Connie mentioned that the K-20/Legislative Public Hearing Video Conferencing Proof of Concept Project has now supported two legislative hearings in addition to the Washington Learns hearing and additional events are anticipated both before and during the coming legislative session. Connie explained that there is a high level of interest in the Senate regarding hearings via video conference. She added that the process used by the K-20 Program Office has been to meet with the chief clerk’s office, the LSC staff, and the educational sector representatives to conduct an initial discussion about each event and Michael Evans has been loaned to each event project to serve as a technical, planning, and operational resource for the events. Connie added that at the morning session of the Washington Learns hearing, the rooms in Olympia were packed and attendance was significant at the remote sites as well, providing a great example of the usefulness and accessibility of K-20. Connie told the group that during the September K-20 Board Meeting, Representative Hunt asked that K-20 contact the House Education Committee Staff to look into setting up a committee hearing before the session starts to give them an understanding of the K-20 budget request and what K-20 means to the educational sectors. Connie also mentioned that in the recent board meeting briefing with Senator Kohl-Welles, she asked K-20 staff to seek out Senator McAuliffe to talk about the K-20 network, demonstrating that the K-20 Board members want to be very specific about how the upcoming legislature session is approached. The K-20 budget has been sent to the Office of Financial Management and they have requested some additional information. Tom Carroll commented that there may be a legislative session strategy tie-in related to this discussion and Connie added that K-20 staff is meeting with OFM on a regular basis to discuss these and other issues. Connie told the group that the work of the Program Subcommittee is continuing and Susan will be sending additional information out to the workgroup. Connie Michener added that the new K-20 web site was discussed at the September board meeting and the board briefing materials were sent to the NTSC members along with the changed K-20 logo. At that point, Tom brought the presentation from the board meeting into the NTSC Meeting, and Susan Tenkhoff gave an overview of the look and feel and the types of content that will be present on the new site. Connie explained that the K-12 presentation to the board about K-12 data was very well received. Dennis Small mentioned that the most recent K-12 survey results show that 99% of K-12 classrooms are connection to K-20. There was discussion about how the transition to IP ties in with this information and dialogue regarding changes in the definition of the K-20 demarc. Dennis also explained that 78% of the classroom computers now meet the performance standards identified by OSPI. Susan showed the group some of the presentation slides having to do with K-12 issues, and emphasized the importance of obtaining stories from all K-20 entities as soon as possible so they can be included the new web site. Mike Scroggins commented that the web site presents a good opportunity to present a consistent K-20 message to everyone, and Terry Teale asked about the timeline for getting the web site online. Connie Michener explained that the K-20 Board was told the web site will be live in the December time frame. Tom Carroll added that videos of interviews with key K-20 people, such as members of the K-20 Board and the NTSC, are examples of the kinds of content that may be included on the new site in the future. Connie explained that Louis Fox conducted an Internet 2 presentation for the K-20 Board that included demos and examples of Internet 2 in action. Connie added that there is a K-20 Internet 2 conference scheduled for next year and more information about that event will become available in the coming months.
4. Qwest Residual Fund Update. Connie Michener reported that the Qwest settlement partners have given the green light for all of the identified projects to move forward. Mike Scroggins asked if the money has gone out yet, and Connie explained that has not happened yet and the details of that process are being worked out.
5. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Clare Donahue was unable to attend the NTSC Meeting, and in her absence Steve Paulson provided both background and current information regarding the issues related to CALEA. Steve remarked that the history leading up to CALEA dates back to rulings regulating wiretapping in the 1920s, and CALEA itself was passed by the U.S. congress in 1994. With the advent of the Internet, entities such as ISPs began to be affected by the act, although now the FCC has extended CALEA to the public Internet, potentially including monitoring of network activities at some educational institutions. Libraries and K-12 institutions are excluded from this extension. The Community and Technical Colleges and Baccalaureate institutions may be affected. Some of the tests Steve mentioned that may be applied for these institutions are whether or not they have a private network, a connection to the Internet, and/ or incidental versus significant public usage. If an institution’s network is judged to not be private or significant public usage is demonstrated, CALEA may impact the institution. Steve commented that the K-20 demarc concept as it currently exists may be a protection from CALEA, and added that the determination of what is considered “private” needs to happen with legal assistance. Steve also pointed out that even if an institution doesn’t have to be concerned about their K-20 connection, they may have to be concerned about how CALEA impacts a backup connection to the Internet. Steve explained that the current rules state that those institutions that must be compliant have to do so by May of 2007, although the equipment an institution will need to be compliant doesn’t appear to exist yet. Steve told the group that compliance originally implied that every network device would have to be compliant, but in June of 2006 the criteria was re-defined to mean the gateway device only will need to be made compliant at affected institutions. Compliance costs are defined as being local costs to the institution, and exactly what that means currently remains unclarified. Steve explained that the process is very early in its development and large institutions in particular have a lot of people working on the issues related to CALEA. The Justice Department has been pushing back on the issue, and a CALEA 2 is already under discussion. Mike Scroggins remarked that the NTSC will need to monitor the process and future changes. Tom Carroll added that having to address the requirements at a single device rather than across all network devices would be a lot more manageable and room in the budget might need to be created to address potential institutional needs. Steve mentioned that although K-20 may be considered a private network, legal experts will have to be consulted regarding the implications and impact of CALEA, and discussions may need to be extended to service providers as well. Mike Scroggins commented that in the CTC sector, the potential cost could amount to millions of dollars, and reminded the group that the NTSC has an Assistant AG assigned for their use, if needed. Steve mentioned that there will be an exempting certification document available and Tom Carroll remarked that the issue is one that will not be going away, especially with the proliferation of quasi-public networks.
6. NGN Project Update. Frank Leeds told the group that the Next Generation Network Architecture primary transport RFQ is on the street with responses due back from the vendors by October 5th and expects to have contracts in place by the end of November. The secondary transport issues are now being reviewed and the team has agreed to broaden the scope of those considerations to include WiMax and other local access services. The team is expecting a 1st quarter of 2007 RFP for secondary transport and the current secondary contracts will be extended from 2007 to 2008. Tom Carroll explained that the secondary transport timeline is being extended to allow the team to focus on the backbone issues now and the secondary circuit issues immediately following the primary circuit work. Mike Scroggins mentioned that at the September K-20 Board Meeting, the members loved the Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing portion of Frank’s presentation, and Mike also asked about Frank’s comment at the board meeting regarding the improved quality of the re-designed network. Frank explained that the new NGN Architecture will be a single ring, rather than a ring of rings. If any segment became inactive for some reason, the network will re-route automatically, and less engineering and maintenance overhead is needed for ongoing maintenance. Frank added that the team wants to invest the time needed to ensure the secondary circuit failover requirements and other needs of customers are properly met.
7. IP Video Discussion. Michael Evans told the group that since the last NTSC Meeting, Draft 9 of the ISDN to IP transition document was made available to the sectors and also remains posted on the current K-20 web site. He added that additional information has been gleaned from both the K-12 VITU Meeting on August 24th and the most recent Video Working Group Meeting on September 6th and a few items are being changed or added to the document before releasing it as a final version. Mike Scroggins commented that the issues of nervousness about the transition and issues such as the question of connection quality appear to make the idea of a large IP video symposium with video conferencing, IT, and program people in attendance seems to make sense. Mike mentioned sharing resources, discussion about the cost of resource/bandwidth usage, and possibly a panel discussion as potential activities for such an event. Mike added that such an event could serve as a forum to ask and answer questions and learn about outside resources, including vendors, sectors, and institutions. Steve Paulson commented that consideration of some specific issues, such as governance and finance issues might necessitate activity separate from the symposium setting. The group had some discussion about the timing of such an event, and Don Peters remarked that the event needs to take place before the start of the fall 2007 school year. Mike Scroggins commented that there may be a need for a council of organizations that share information at a higher level than the video support teams across K-20. Dennis Small mentioned that discussion of distance learning policies and IP video – including best practices – would be good items for a K-20 video symposium. Mike Scroggins asked the Video Working Group to begin discussion about and planning of a K-20 video conferencing symposium event to take place in the spring or summer 2007 time frame.
8. High Bandwidth Implementation. Susan Tenkhoff told the group 10 sites from the current implementation phases currently have ongoing construction issues. Susan added that the next procurement went out a few weeks ago with over 60 sites on the list, and explained that by Spring of 2007, over 200 fast Ethernet sites are expected to be online across K-20.
9. Chair’s Report. Mike Scroggins reminded the group that the NTSC is defined in statute and has a multidimensional charge from the legislature that extends beyond agency, sector and institutional boundaries. He also reiterated that because the NTSC is defined in statute, there is an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the NTSC as a resource.
10. New Business. Steve Paulson told the group that a new site request had presented itself for consideration by the NTSC. The request came from the University of Washington and is for the Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technologies Program, or DO-IT. The program requested a new DS-1 circuit for their Spokane office. Mike Scroggins asked for a motion to approve the circuit, and Terry Teale made the motion, which was seconded by Dennis Small. Approved unanimously. Connie Michener mentioned that ongoing discussion and effort regarding the Seattle Art Museum joining the K-20 network has resulted in University of Washington sponsorship and that Senator Kohl-Welles has specifically requested that the K-20 office look into the possibility of a K-20 connection for the museum. Connie asked the NTSC to consider the request for the new location. Mike Scroggins asked for a motion, and Terry Teale once again made the motion to approve the new circuit address and Dennis Small seconded it. Approved unanimously.
11. Roundtable. Dennis Small told the group that 11 video conferencing equipment grant requests have come in so far, and also added that both Wahluke School District and the Washington School for the Blind will be participating in the upcoming America Reads the Constitution national Internet 2 video conferencing event.
Meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM.