MERC

March 23, 2006, Institutional Representatives Meeting Notes

Room 60, Tan-Tar-A, Osage Beach, MO, 8 – 9:15 a.m.

MOREnet Security Updates – Randy Raw, Network Security Services Manager, MOREnet

Raw began by speaking about a few current security issues including phishing schemes, bot networks, and spyware. He reminded the attendees of the upcoming SANS Forensics course scheduled to be held June 12-17, 2006 at the Stoney Creek Inn in Columbia, MO.

Raw discussed various vulnerability assessment options. Self-service scanning is available as a free service for MOREnet members through MyMOREnet and is primarily utilized for workstations. Remote Vulnerability Assessments (RVA) are also available from MOREnet for a fee. The RVAs include scanning for SANS top ten vulnerabilities and advanced & recurring vulnerability scanning, which several member organizations do on a quarterly basis. Raw also announced that MOREnet is in the process of testing a service to provide remote scanning through firewalls. Raw also mentioned that the use of pre-loaded CD’s with Auditor or HELIX programs is an option.

Raw reviewed some managed services available for MOREnet members. The Good Net Neighbor Service includes two levels. The first level blocks Windows Networking ports, which are sometimes used by worms and viruses to scan and infect other computers through the internet. Level two will block outbound SMTP traffic except known mail servers within the network. Both levels are free for MOREnet members. MOREnet is in the process of testing a Blackhole DNS Server, and when available will be a free service for members. E-mail Virus and Spam Filtering is available to members for a fee. Raw reported that the service has received good feedback from many members, and that 75 to 85 % of spam is blocked.

MOREnet’s monthly Centra web seminar includes training on security tools, awareness, and updates. Classroom based training is also available to MOREnet members and includes topics such as layered security, Windows OS security, and securing wireless networks.

Raw announced that the MOREnet Security Symposium will be held in December of 2006 and a call for presentations will be going out this spring.

Raw also reviewed other services MOREnet provides to members free of charge such as daily security news links on MOREnet’s security web pages and e-mail announcements of critical security information. There are also additional security offerings available through MyMOREnet such as RADAR and NetFlow statistics, and the self-scanning tool mentioned previously.

Next Generation Network Update – Bill Mitchell, Executive Director, MOREnet

Mitchell began with a review of the four options being considered and researched for the Next Generation Network (NGN):

1. Long term lease of dark fiber. An advantage to leasing is that ongoing costs would be stabilized and about five years after implementation the service will have paid for itself. A disadvantage is that upfront costs would be considerable.
2. Traditional Managed Transport: A concern with continuing Managed Service is that the more bandwidth consumed, the greater the cost. With the dark fiber option costs are limited to equipment purchases when more bandwidth is needed.
3. Virtual Dark Fiber: A managed service that behaves like dark fiber. A downside is that few vendors offer a service like this, however there would be less upfront cost associated with the virtual dark fiber and stabilized ongoing costs.
4. MoDOT Fiber: MOREnet has participated in ongoing talks with the state over the possibility of utilizing MoDOT fiber. The reorganization of the state last year moved all of the state IT departments under the Office of Administration. This has contributed to the complications of the MoDOT fiber option, however the option is still on the table and talks will continue.

Mitchell stated that the original goal of having a new backbone operational in February of 2007 will not be met. The current backbone contract will be extended. There will be sufficient capacity to support the network until around January of 2008 when it will become saturated.

SB1115 Update – Bill Mitchell, Executive Director, MOREnet

Mitchell stated that although SB1115 is a Senate bill, it did originate in the House. Several members of the House studied Arizona’s converged network, meaning they have combined voice, video, data into one IP backbone. About three weeks ago SB1115 was introduced, which states that the state of Missouri will create a converged network using the MoDOT fiber and all state agencies, public colleges and universities must use the converged state network for all telecommunication services.

Mitchell mentioned that there is a House companion bill (HB1957) which at the moment is identical to SB1115. Because it is so late in the legislative session, it is unlikely that the bills will pass this session. If the bills were to pass, then there would be a pilot around fiscal year 2009 and organizations would then be moved onto the network during the 2010 fiscal year.

MERC Financial Report – Jennifer Doll, Director of Fiscal and Contractual Services, MOREnet

Doll began by reviewing the MERC budget for the year ending June 30, 2006. The budget includes the approved budget compared to the budget reprojected in mid-fiscal year (December 2005). The reprojected budget shows revenues to be about $40,000 less than anticipated due to re-validated FTE data (which member fees are based on). Actual expenses in the salaries and benefits section are about $18,000 lower than previously budgeted, mainly due to vacancies at MOREnet. The savings were then passed on to the MOREnet members. There is an increase in the other expenses category of about $15,000 directly related to the contract with T. Stewart Consulting for member advocacy. Overall projections show expenses exceeding revenues for the year of about $188,000. This is primarily a result of the agreement to use some of the MERC reserves to subsidize the FY06 member fees. Doll reminded the attendees that the MERC Board had agreed to subsidize member fees by $230,000.

Doll then reviewed the MERC financial report showing the actuals for February of 2006 compared to budget. Overall the actuals are tracking with the budget. Doll reported that currently the costs are around $10,000. Salaries and benefit actuals are tracking closely to the budget.

The last item Doll reviewed was the HELIX Conference financial report. This includes expenses for the conference incurred up to the end of February. The MERC Board will receive an update of the HELIX conference costs after the close of conference. In the revenues section there is a transfer listed for the 2006 HELIX Conference. The MERC Board had approved a budget of $20,000 to support the 2006 HELIX Conference. The transfer will occur in March after the expenses for the conference have been finalized.

It was pointed out that the last sheet in the budget handout is incorrectly titled “Proposed Budget”. It should be titled “Actual Budget” instead.

MERC FY07 Fees – Dr. Rita Gulstad

Gulstad reminded the attendees that they should have received a letter outlining the FY07 fee structure. There were some increases in membership fees based on the three tier system of FTE counts. There is also a network connectivity charge based on a member’s total connected bandwidth at $562.00 per Mb. That fee is based on bandwidth in production as of December 31, 2005. Gulstad reminded everyone that these fees are proposed, and encourages anyone with questions on their anticipated expenditures to contact Nancy Piringer at MOREnet.

Mitchell reminded the attendees that MOREnet took a 30% core cut in appropriations in FY06. Based on legislative activities so far it appears there will be no additional funding cuts this year and funding for FY07 will equal that of FY06.

MERC Strategic Planning Task Force – Dr. Rita Gulstad

Gulstad stated that about four years ago the MERC Board worked with Institutional Representatives to produce a draft listing of goals and activities for MERC. Gulstad stated that she would like to formulate a small task force of volunteers to re-visit those goals and identify what MERC wants to accomplish as an organization.

Gulstad also reported to the attendees that the MOREnet Council had asked the MERC Board to come up with some goals that MERC would like to see the Council accomplish. Gulstad shared and reviewed the MERC goals for the MOREnet Council with the attendees. Gulstad then asked for questions or comments. Russell Helm noted that the first goal seems to pull the Council away from operations and the last goal pushes them back into operations. Gulstad asked if anyone had comments on the political aspects of the goals.

Robert Stein commented that the MOREnet Council has been around for about three years and it was a long difficult process to get it established. It was not something that carried a great deal of precedent or that people were very comfortable with. Stein stated that the previous year was probably the first year that people were comfortable with the Council and the Council felt comfortable as a council. Now is the time to evaluate the Council and establish goals and directions for it. Stein encouraged the idea that MERC needs to have representation on the Council to provide a flow of information.

Gulstad reminded the attendees that she is looking for volunteers for the MERC Goals and Activities task force and encouraged them to come forward and tell herself or Nancy Piringer after the meeting.

MERC Board Elections – Nominations of Candidates for FY07 Slate

Gulstad reported that nominations are needed to fill positions on the MERC Board that will become vacant as of July 1, 2006. Nominations will be needed to fill the Chair-Elect position, the two independent Director-at-Large positions; the one public two-year/technical college Director-at-Large position; and the one public four-year Director-at-Large position. The Institutional Representatives broke into groups by sector (the independent sector, the two-year sector and the four-year sector) and each group was asked to identify a chair elect candidate and to identify candidates for the other open positions.

The following Institutional Representatives were nominated as candidates:

Independent Sector:
Chair-Elect: Joel LaReau
Director-at-Large: Chad Shepherd
Director-at-Large: Bob McGlasson

Public 4-year:
Chair-Elect: Mark Mabe*
Director-at-Large: Mark Mabe

Public 2-year:
Chair-Elect: Joel LaReau
Director-at-Large: Craig Klimczak

*NOTE: Mark Mabe was nominated for the Chair-Elect position by the 4-year public IR’s. Mark and his colleagues subsequently withdrew Mark from the Chair-Elect nomination in support of the 2-year public IR’s nomination of Joel LaReau as Chair-Elect.

Attendees

• Russell Helm, Central Missouri State University
• Greg Pahuski, Sanford Brown College
• Bob McGlasson, Southwest Baptist University
• Bob Paulson, State Fair Community College
• Mark, Mabe, Missouri Western State University
• Joel, LaReau, Ozarks Technical Community College
• George Beshears, Truman State University
• John Rucker, Crowder College
• Beth Chancellor, University of Missouri-Columbia
• Matt Heinrich, Rockhurst University
• Robert Stein, Missouri Department of Higher Education
• Rita Gulstad, Central Methodist University
• Joel Sovanski, Lincoln University
• Scott Hartwig, Harris-Stowe State University
• Chad Shepherd, St. Louis College of Pharmacy
• Brian Buege, University of Missouri-Rolla
• Craig Klimczak, St. Louis Community College
• Robert Walker, Missouri Southern State University
• Megan Barney, MOREnet
• Chip Byers, MOREnet
• Jennifer Doll, MOREnet
• Bill Giddings, MOREnet
• Bill Mitchell, MOREnet
• Nancy Piringer, MOREnet
• Randy Raw, MOREnet