1. TEC reactions to the proposals of Geoff McMullen David Williams TERENA General Assembly, Prague October 24-25, 2002

2. Introduction n Good work n Thanks to Geoff n Unfortunately unable to attend

3. Recommendations 1 and 2 1. Agree that projects are principally the work of the Technical Committee Completely agree 2. Accept that occasional projects (for example SERENATE) will probably fall outside the scope of the Technical Committee’s work and will need particular attention. Specify by whom – Secretary-General, President, TEC? We agree. Such projects will be handled by the TEC.

4. Recommendation 3 3. Update the Technical Committee terms of reference to document and implement for Technical Committee projects the planning cycle described under the “Fourth Choice” heading. Note that to do this implies only manageable change to the reporting systems of TERENA, and has no impact on the statutes, the VAT position of TERENA or its members, or the approval cycle. We agree in principle, with some suggestions of detail. See later

5. Recommendation 5 5. Implement the recommended approach in 2003 (as year 0 of the recommended cycle), to have its full effect for 2004. Again, we agree in principle. We would, however, like the views of the GA on the question of whether TERENA should adopt a fixed cycle (say 4 years) or a continuous cycle.

6. Recommendation 4 4. Invite an internationally based group to review at the end of each project cycle the quality of project work undertaken in that cycle. We agree with this suggestion. We understand “internationally” to mean largely (completely?) taken from outside Europe.

7. Recommendation 6 6. Amend the General Assembly meetings to accommodate a greater level of member participation in developing the technical programme. On the whole we think that it would be more practical to work with Technical Committee of the GA, meeting on the day before the GA. Perhaps the mandate of the TAC needs to be strengthened. We would welcome discussion of this in the GA. We also wondered about creating (by symmetry) a Finance Committee of the GA? Or is that exaggerated for an organisation or TERENA’s size?

8. Recommendation 7 7. Seek a system of collaboration with DANTE for project planning at the level of Chairman of the Technical Committee. This seems to be a good idea, and will be pursued.

9. Recommendation 8 8. Consider changing the accounting system to support Activity Based Costing (ABC), to enable greater clarity concerning the cost of projects and core activities. It may be advisable to produce internal management accounts on an ABC basis for internal clarity, while continuing to produce formal accounts on a more traditional basis – this is a matter for consideration by TEC and the secretariat. While we would welcome input from the GA, the TEC’s initial reaction is that the formal accounts should indeed be handled on the traditional basis. We would welcome the use of ABC for clarity of discussion internally and by the GA.

10. WHAT NEXT?

11. Proposed 2003 schedule n Call for proposals n Session in Conference n Strengthened TAC deliberations, leading to recommendations on projects to be supported in 2004 n Decisions in Fall GA