1. Approval of minutes
2. IT Response to IT 5 year Administrative Unit Review
3. The Process for Developing Recommendations on Permanent Instructional Technology Funds Allocations for 2000-01 and Beyond
4. AC4-AdC3 Coordination on Network and Computing Infrastructure Policy Issues
5. DHCP
6. LEAD Project: Review of Faculty Needs Assessment Information

Excused: John Bruno, Jerry Hallee, Jennifer Ramesh, Mel Ramey, Peter Rock.

Absent: Robert Becker, Sheila Desai, Cristina Gonzalez.

Guests: TRC: Victoria Cross, IT: Kent Kuo and Vicki Suter.

Staff to the Council: Gilda Garcia, Paula King, Bob Loessberg-Zahl.

Announcements/Welcome
Harry Matthews welcomed Dorothy Howe, appointed to AC4 as an alternate student rep, Kent Kuo as guest for item 5, and Vicki Suter and Victoria Cross for item 6. Professor Matthews announced that Kent Kuo has changed his role in IT, he is now an Associate Director in IT: Communications Resources.

1. Approval of Minutes - Harry Matthews

   The July meeting minutes were approved as submitted.

2. IT Response to IT 5 year Administrative Unit Review - Bob Loessberg-Zahl
   Handout: IT Times Special Edition: IT Responds to the Five-Year Administrative Unit Review Report Recommendations.

   Bob Loessberg-Zahl reviewed the Council some of the key points he found in the Report and IT's Response. He provided some background of discussions that occurred during the AUR as they related to roles and responsibilities of the central IT organization and of campus units. It will take more than preparing separate Memoranda Of Understanding to solve the issue. The responsibilities need to be defined according to a common set of principles. It is suggested that this group communicate this point to the Provost. Another key point is the action to create a proposal to make Information and Educational Technology a separate unit with faculty leadership with responsibility for carrying out that part of the roles and responsibilities with the deans is in the planning stage. Harry Matthews also read some of the points from Dr. Grey's memo to Deans and Vice Chancellors, dated July 30, 1999, regarding technology support. One of things the memo asks for is for deans to identify a technical liaison to IT. Since the July IT Response was issued, John Bruno, the Vice Provost-Information and Educational Technology has been appointed. He will attend his first AC4 meeting next month. Acknowledging that the AUR Committee had limited time and background, it would be good for AC4 members to raise additional important items or issues they believe were not covered in the Report.

   Regarding the IT Policy Analyst Position Description, this is part of the process of appointing people in to work on campuswide information technology policy issues, in line with a number of the AUR recommendations.

   Actions:
   

   1. AC4 to submit issues to Harry Matthews, John Bruno, or Paula King.
   2. Submit comments about the Policy Analyst positions or their roles to Harry Matthews, John Bruno, or Paula King.
   3. Matt Bishop (John Stenzel as an alternate) will serve on the Policy Analyst Recruitment Committee. Any other AC4 members who are interested to participate should contact Paula King.

3. The Process for Developing Recommendations on Permanent Instructional Technology Funds Allocations for 2000-01 and Beyond - Bob Loessberg-Zahl
   Handout: Instructional Technology Funds

   Bob Loessberg-Zahl went over the handout. It is suggested that consideration be given to planning for long-term funding of projects that are approved. One example is the Gateway project, currently funded as a three-year project. This discussion is to determine what role AC4 plays in these kinds of issues. Some projects are pilot work in order to understand the full cost. Without that work, it is hard to say the full cost. A key decision is one on how ongoing remote access will be funded.

   Actions:
   

   1. Bob Loessberg-Zahl and Kent Kuo to assess on-going costs of ITF projects as we currently understand them, in orderfor AC4 to consider which projects are candidates for permanent funding. AC4 Educational Subcommittee to review and bring recommendations back to the October AC4 meeting.
   2. Notify Donna Udahl, Bob Loessber-Zahl's assistant, once AC4 Educational Subcommittee meetings are scheduled for Bob Loessberg-Zahl to make sure someone from P&B attends the meetings.
   3. Kent Kuo to check with Doug to see if UCDNET buildout includes networking for any classrooms.

4. AC4-AdC3 Coordination on Network and Computing Infrastructure Policy Issues - Alan Laub, Harry Matthews

   The Network Budget & Policy Oversight Committee has disbanded. That means that there is no group looking at longer-term network issues. One of the issues is how much to spend on research networking. A Network Operations Oversight Advisory Committee was appointment on August 23.

   Actions:
   

   1. A copy of the committee charge will be distributed to AC4 and AdC3.
   2. At the IT Policy Board meeting yesterday, it was determined that Vice Provost Bruno will take this issue under advisement, consult a bit more on the issues, and return with some recommendations for how to proceed at the next IT Policy Board meeting.
   3. The AC4 Research Subcommittee will also discuss the topic at their first meeting. We need to assess what our needs are in this area, particularly the issue of connectivity between UCD and UCDMC.

5. DHCP - Kent Kuo

   DHCP stands for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. It will allow for dynamic configuration network addresses instead of using an assigned IP address that must be changed as one changes locations on campus. This helps cut down on network configuration issues by allowing faculty members to go from the office to the classroom without having to take the time to make configuration changes to their computers. The project has been piloted with RESNET for the past two years. ITF funds are to roll out the service to the entire campus. One key decision that has been made was the decision to go with NETID software, which has a version that works with Oracle database software, without needing any additional integration work.

   All ITF projects are being reviewed to make sure that the quick, early estimates provided enough information to ensure effective project implementations. The initial time frames to develop project estimates were very short, and the AC4 agreed that a review of the project scopes and budgets was appropriate. ITF managers (who had not previously had formal project management training) are attending a project management class this week. Initial pilots in DCAS and other groups from campus will test NETID with an expected completion by fall of 2000. The project will be an effective way for students to use ports to connect their laptops on campus. Since the project will affect everyone on campus-- faculty, staff and students-- it will be reviewed by the Network Operations Advisory Committee. Faculty and student-related policy issues will be brought to AC4. One of the important issues is training. The goal is to implement DHCP in as seamless way as possible.

6. LEAD Project: Review of Faculty Needs Assessment Information - Vicki Suter
   Handouts:
   
   1. LEAD Project Plan Timeline
   2. LEAD Project Draft Final Report Outline as of 9/99
   3. LEAD Project Faculty Needs Assessment Summary-September 1999
   4. LEAD Faculty Survey Responses
   5. LEAD Distributed Computing Architecture/Distributed Learning Environment Architecture (Distributed via campus mail)
   6. LEAD Project update for AC4, September 17, 1999 (PowerPoint presentation, distributed at the meeting).

   Actions:
   
   1. AC4 members should plan to attend Think Tank events scheduled on November 17, 18, and 19. The purpose will to provide for public review of the LEAD draft final report. Specific times are listed on the project update handout. Locations to be determined.
   2. AC4 members are encouraged to attend First Friday events at the Arbor from 10 to noon. Institutional readiness criteria is the topic for October's event, which will be on the 8th instead of October 1.
   3. On November 5 the first full draft of the final report will be reviewed.
   4. The second draft of the final report will be reviewed on December 3.

   The distributed architecture diagram needs to be reviewed to make sure it is approached across the board so that the academic and administrative infrastructure are in sync.

   Actions:
   

   1. Paula King, Debbie Lauriano and Vicki Suter to review diagram.
   2. Vicki Suter to work with Richard Plant to have AC4 Research Subcommittee review architecture.
   3. Discuss architecture diagram at an AdC3 meeting.
   4. Please review the handouts and submit your comments to Vicki.