Spring 2002 Internet2 Member Meeting

1. Spring 2002 Internet2 Member Meeting Internet2 Business Meeting

2. Agenda • Financial Review • Board and Council Nominations • Intellectual Property Framework • Summary / Close John Kennedy Barb Nanzig Jill Arnold Doug Van Houweling

3. Internet2 Membership • 194 Member Universities • 17 Corporate Partners • 12 Corporate Sponsors • 36 Corporate Members • 38 Affiliate Members • 39 International MoU Partners • 53 Connectors (23 at OC-120 or greater) • 215 Participants • 51 Sponsored Participants • 23 Sponsored Education Group Participants (SEGPs)

4. Some FAQs About Internet2 Financials • Where does the funding come from? • What is Internet2’s current financial position? • How does the budget work? • What’s the budget for 2002?

5. Where Does the Funding Come From? • Core and project budgets funded by member dues, meeting fees, grants, interest, investment income, overhead charge to Abilene and core reserves or net assets. • Abilene funded by participation, connection, SEGP fees and Abilene reserves or net assets.

6. Where Does the Funding Come From? Member Dues Total Member Dues Total Meeting Fees Abilene Fees Total Abilene Fees Total Grant Income Total Miscellaneous Total Interest / Investment Income GRAND TOTAL REVENUES As of 2002 2001 Actual* 3/31/02* Budget* Regular $4,719 $4,891 $4,800 Affiliate 645 515 610 Corporate 1,038 1,055 1,200 $6,402 $6,461 $6,610 $118 $46 $115 Connection $8,574 $2,313 $10,305 Participation 3,788 1,332 4,090 SEGP 686 34 865 $13,048 $3,679 $15,260 $544 $0 $672 $183 $3 $0 $775 $91 $500 $21,080 $10,280 $23,157 *000’s omitted

7. What is Internet2’s Current Financial Position? Assets Total Current Assets Total Investments Total Property and Equipment Other Assets Total Assets Liabilities and Net Assets Total Current Liabilities Total Long-Term Liabilities Total Liabilities Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Balance Sheet Balance Sheet As of As of 12/31/01* 3/31/02* $15,680 $16,498 $13,263 $13,299 900 917 304 $30,148 $30,714 $12,858 $6,994 0 0 $12,858 $6,994 $17,290 $23,720 $30,148$30,714 *000’s omitted

8. 2001 Audit Results • Audit conducted by Ernst & Young LLP in late January, 2002. • Audit report to the Board of Trustees dated February 7, 2002. • “In our opinion, the financial results referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development at December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the consolidated results of its operations and changes in net assets, and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.”

9. How Does the Budget Work? • Consolidated Budget • EQUALS • Core budget + Projects budget + • Abilene budget

10. How Does the Budget Work? • Core budget made up of the following functions: Administration Applications Communications Corporate Relations Engineering External Relations International Relations Member Activities Middleware

11. How Does the Budget Work? • Project budget made up of the following projects: • Applications: Commons, Oxford/UKERNA, NEES • End to End Performance • Expanded Access • Middleware: Directories, PKI, Shibboleth

12. 5% 2% 26% 41% 12% 6% 1% 7% Total Personnel Office Support Total Meeting Abilene Network Total Total Travel Total Other Printing, publication Total Capital Expenditures Actual FY 2001 Consolidated by Type of Expense

13. 5% 4% 25% 49% Total Personnel Office Support 11% Total Meeting Abilene Network Total 0% 1% Total Travel Total Other 5% Printing, publication Total Capital Expenditures Actual FY 2002 Consolidated by Type of Expense as of 3/31/02

14. Total Personnel Office Support Total Meeting Abilene Network Total Total Travel Total Other Printing, publication Total Capital Expenditures Budget FY 2002 Consolidated by Type of Expense 27% 30% 4% 3% 3% 1% 7% 25%

15. 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% Abilene 1% Administration 5% Applications Communications 34% Corporate 11% Engineering Membership Federal Middleware International Applications Projects 1% End to End Performance Expanded Access 3% Tech Transfer Middleware Projects Grants 8% 3% 3% 14% 11% Actual FY 2001 Consolidated by Area

16. 0% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 5% Membership Middleware 57% Applications Projects End to End Performance 7% Abilene Expanded Access Allocated Administration Middleware Projects Applications Grants Communications 7% Corporate Engineering Federal International Budget FY 2002 Consolidated by Area Budget CY'02 Consolidated by Area

17. Reserve Balance Overview Reserve Balance 12/31/97 Reserve Balance 12/31/98 Reserve Balance 12/31/99 Reserve Balance 12/31/00 Reserve Balance 12/31/01 Reserve Balance 3/31/02 Expected Reserve Balance 12/31/02 • Consolidated Core Abilene Grants Projects • 1,782,187 1,782,187 ---- ---- ---- • 4,990,289 6,189,272 (1,198,983) ---- ---- • 6,066,702 6,948,395 (881,693) ---- ---- • 10,658,968 6,347,999 4,451,345 (140,376) ---- • 17,279,920 7,003,899 11,285,425 38,466 (1,047,870) • 23,719,734 11,942,953 13,296,091 (58,870) (1,460,440) • 7,192,543 6,052,256 4,749,123 ---- (3,608,837)

18. www.internet2.edu

19. Spring 2002 Internet2 Member Meeting Internet2 Business Meeting Board and Council Nominations

20. UCAID Board of Trustees • 2002 Nominees • Larry Faulkner, President University of Texas, Austin (re-nominated) • Charles Vest, PresidentMassachusetts Institute of Technology

21. UCAID Board of Trustees • Continuing • Myles Brand, Indiana University • Molly Broad, University of North Carolina (chair) • William Bowen, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • Greg Jackson, University of Chicago • Lawrence Landweber, University of Wisconsin, Madison • Richard Liebhaber, KPNQwest • Diana Natalicio, University of Texas, El Paso • Steven Sample, University of Southern California • Douglas E. Van Houweling, UCAID (ex officio)

22. Applications Strategy Council • Elected • Parvati Dev, Stanford University • Mark Ellisman, University of California, San Diego (reappointed) • Lawrence Rowe, University of California, Berkeley • George Thoma, MD, National Library of Medicine • Joel E. Tohline, Louisiana State University (reappointed) • Glen H. Wheless, Old Dominion University (reappointed)

23. Applications Strategy Council • Continuing • Donna J. Cox, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign • Robert Kibrick, University of California Lick Observatory • David Lassner, University of Hawaii • Clifford A. Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) • Homer A. Neal, University of Michigan • Harvey Newman, California Institute of Technology

24. Industry Strategy Council • Elected • Gary Augustson, Pennsylvania State University • Vinton Cerf, WorldCom (reappointed) • John Evans, Evans Telecommunications (reappointed) • Brian McFadden, Nortel Networks • Mike Nelson, IBM • Richard Rashid, Microsoft Research

25. Industry Strategy Council • Continuing • Dan Atkins, University of Michigan • Alfred R. Berkeley, III, NASDAQ • Judith Estrin, Packet Design • Kim Jones, Sun Microsystems • Raman Khanna, Diamondhead Ventures • David Nagel, AT&T Labs • Dick Liebhaber, KPN/Qwest (chair) • Arun Netravali, Bell Labs

26. Network Planning and Policy Council • Elected • Charlie Catlett, Argonne National Labs • H. David Lambert, Georgetown University • Mark Luker, EDUCAUSE (reappointed) • Michael McRobbie, Indiana University (reappointed) • Annie Stunden, University of Wisconsin, Madison

27. Network Planning and Policy Council • Continuing • Earving L. Blythe, Virginia Tech • Joanne Hugi, University of Oregon • Gregory A. Jackson, University of Chicago (chair) • Ron Johnson, University of Washington • Michael Krugman, Northern Crossroads (NOX) • Bonnie Neas, North Dakota State University • Don Riley, University of Maryland • John Silvester, University of Southern California

28. Network Research Liaison Council • Elected • Alexander Fraser, AT&T (reappointed) • Jorg Liebeherr, University of Virginia • Stefan Savage, University of California, San Diego • Steve Wolff, Cisco Systems (reappointed from ISC)

29. Network Research Liaison Council • Continuing • Tony Acampora, University of California, San Diego • Richards Adrion, University of Massachusetts • Duncan Buell, University of South Carolina • Doug Comer, Purdue University • David Farber, University of Pennsylvania • Len Kleinrock, University of California, Los Angeles • Larry Landweber, University of Wisconsin (chair) • Stu Personick, Drexel University

30. www.internet2.edu

31. Spring 2002 Internet2 Member Meeting Internet2 Business Meeting Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework

32. Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework • Development Overview • Experience in Pilot Implementation • Key Elements of the IP Framework • What’s Next?

33. Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework • Development Overview • Experience in Pilot Implementation • Key Elements of the IP Framework • What’s Next?

34. Development Overview • 2001 • April: Board of Trustees Approves Framework Approach and Plan for Development • May – Sept: Initial IP Framework Developed • Input from NPPAC, ISC, Corporate Partners • Informed by Internet2 Middleware Initiative • October: Board of Trustees Approves Internet2 Pilot Intellectual Property Framework and Pilot Implementation.

35. Development Overview • 2002 • Jan – March: Pilot Implementation • April: Internet2 IP Framework approved by Board of Trustees • May: Review/Comment by ISC • May – Oct: Implementation

36. Intellectual Property Framework • Supports Internet2 Goals • Addresses Key Organizational Objectives • Based on Principles of Open Access • Comprehensive yet Flexible Implementation

37. Supports Internet2 Goals • Enable new generation of applications • Re-create leading edge R&E network capability • Transfer technology and experience to the global production Internet

38. Addresses Key Objectives • Encourages Innovation and Collaboration • Avoids excessive costs and complexities • Provides adequate control and protection • Does not create disincentives for participation • Ensures Ability to Access and Use Innovations • Provides appropriate rewards • Precludes wrongful use and exploitation

39. Consistent with Internet2 Principles • Maintain and contribute to the accessible, standards-based character of the Internet. • Encourage broadest possible distribution. • Encourage rapid deployment. • Promote further innovation. • Encourage terms and conditions that reflect contributions of project participants and of Internet2 community.

40. Comprehensive/Flexible Implementation • Comprehensive Application • Activities that participants define as an Internet2 project • Internet2 Initiatives and Projects • Flexible Implementation • General Rule for member defined activities: IP resides with members • Multiple Vehicles for Implementation • “COU-like” Statement • Innovators/Participants take responsibility • Standard approach for Internet2 Initiatives and Projects • Avoids excessive costs and complexities • Recommendation of the Industry Strategy Council

41. Internet2 Intellectual Property • Development Overview • Experience in Pilot Implementation • Key Elements of the IP Framework • What’s Next?

42. Pilot Implementation • Real Experience with the IP Framework • Internet2 Middleware activity • Extensive interaction with IBM legal staff • Convergence of needs and interests with regard to Open Source: • Association of University Technology Management • Global Grid Forum • Government Labs • Member Universities • Industry Strategy Council • Continued work with counsel to Finalize

43. What We Learned • Not Simple • Internet2 ownership of IP may be appropriate. • Background IP requires clarity. • Management Practices are important for Community-Based Projects. • Capability for flexible implementations important • Yet Standard approach for Internet2 coordinated projects desirable

44. What We Learned • Modified BSD license becoming an Open Source standard: balances academic tradition with technology transfer goals. • Implementation requires integration with Working Group processes • Continued congruence with collegial organizations important • Evolutionary process: principles constant yet continued refinement expected

45. Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework • Development Overview • Experience in Pilot Implementation • Key Elements of the IP Framework • What’s Next?

46. IP Developed by Internet2 ProjectsShould: • Maintain and contribute to the accessible, standards-based character of the Internet, and promote appropriate, flexible, and easily administered open source arrangements.

47. IP Developed by Internet2 ProjectsShould: • Where open source or royalty-free arrangements are unworkable, encourage members to make intellectual property developed as part of an Internet2 effort available to UCAID and members of the Internet2 community.

48. IP Developed by Internet2 ProjectsShould: • Terms and conditions should promote further innovation and reflect the contributions of the community and its members to the development of that intellectual property.

49. IP Developed by Internet2 ProjectsShould: • Encourage the broadest possible distribution of the technology. • Encourage rapid deployment of the technology.

50. IP Framework Applicability • Deliverables generated by any activity that has been designated by its participants as an Internet2 activity in accordance with criteria developed by the Internet2 community.