>> Meetings Mid-Year Board Meeting Report, April 2001 Tuesday, April 24, 2001 Washington, DC R E P O R T ACTION ITEMS | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | FULL REPORT In Attendance: David Green, Charles Henry, Michael Jensen, Stanley Katz, Melissa Levine (for Winston Tabb), Joan Lippincott, Amy Masciola, Kathleen McDonnell, Samuel Sachs, Christine Sundt, John Unsworth, Duane Webster Apologies: Pat Williams ACTION ITEMS Stanley Katz and Charles Henry will work with David Green on any revisions deemed necessary to the NINCH logo and on the production of an updated NINCH brochure. A reconstituted Advocacy/Public Policy Working Group needs to consider, among other items on its agenda, revision of the NINCH Advocacy and Copyright statements (in liaison with the NHA Library & IP Committee). Board members are asked to send comments on the “NINCH 2001-2004’ document distributed at the meeting. Board members are asked to forward their suggestions of contact names for our Corporate Council campaign to Tom Costello at tmcostello_20171@yahoo.com. David Green will make a prompt recommendation as to the place and time of the next Forum, based on a survey of membership. Stanley Katz will appoint a new Strategic Planning Committee to consider NINCH’s future program. Any nominations should be sent to Stan by May 30 snkatz@Princeton.edu. David Green will draft a letter of support and interest in the Digital Promise project to be sent by Stanley Katz to Newton Minnow c/o the Century Foundation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Elections: Samuel Sachs II was elected President Elect; he will succeed Stanley Katz as President after the December 2001 Board Meeting Program Report Copyright Town Meetings The Report on the 2000 Town Meetings was well received; it was noted that as the bundle of IP issues becomes larger, the cultural community is gaining in confidence in understanding them and in becoming more proactive in defining solutions. A 2002 series is already taking shape, with interest expressed by the Center for the Public Domain among others. The IP Action Agenda Working Group is moving forward. Some preliminary work in drafting principles is going ahead: cooperation in updating the NHA principles was suggested. Guide to Good Practice The Guide is proceeding well: the next Working Group meeting will be held in Glasgow July 5-6 with the entire consultant team to review the first draft of the Guide. Focus groups were suggested as one way of ensuring that all communities, especially faculty, would be served by the Guide. The Working Group had discussed publication options and the future maintenance of the Guide by an editorial committee that would supercede the working group. NINCH needs now to apply for funding to publish the Guide. Although some felt there was a public relations benefit in publishing a print version along with the web version, it was suggested that a more cost-effective strategy might be to publish a print document that would complement, rather than attempt to reproduce the web publication. Database of Digital Humanities Projects The prototype of the database with full information on the 110 NEH-funded projects was nearing completion. The NEH is interested in seeing the results and supplying more records. Rice and Michigan University have renewed their in-kind commitments to keeping the project moving forward. After the prototype demonstration, foundations will be invited to contribute records along with a fee for processing and updating the records. Building Blocks The Rockefeller and Delmas Foundations were pleased with the project reports. Several project proposals emerging from the workshops are being developed for funding (two are currently before the NSF). The Building Blocks steering committee should be convened later this spring to consider next steps. Computer Science & Humanities Conference The planning committee for this conference will be meeting mid-May; the conference is now scheduled for Spring 2002 at Rice University. Business Models Conference Several board members reported on the success of the conference. CLIR will publish a report later this Spring. NINCH and CLIR have agreed to some parallel immediate next steps in gathering information. This is seen as an important area for continued work. Advocacy/Public Policy Working Group The Board approved the proposal for re-constituting the Advocacy Working Group as a Public Policy Working Group, chaired by Pat Williams. Review Of NINCH Material Components of NINCH’s public materials and statements were summarily reviewed. The Board liked the structure and design of the current brochure, agreeing that it only needed updating. There was some question about whether the logo needed revisiting. Stan Katz and Chuck Henry agreed to work with David on revisions. While the board was content with the current mission statement, it felt that the advocacy and copyright statements needed updating by the advocacy/public policy working group and a joint NINCH/NHA committee, respectively. The new “NINCH 2001-2004” statement was felt to be satisfactory, subject to later comments submitted by the Board and the addition of some comment on NINCH’s public policy role. Budget The FY2000 financial statement and the FY2001 budget were approved, as was the proposal to engage a new accountant. Appreciation was extended to the Association of Research Libraries for its assistance in administrative and financial affairs. Membership 14 new members have joined NINCH since December; current membership pledges stand at $136,500 (which includes the loss of $3,000 from CLIR, as part of a reciprocal membership arrangement, and reduction by $5,000 in dues from ACLS). The membership goal for FY2001 was re-stated to be $150,000. Corporate Council Consultant Thomas Costello reported on the corporate council campaign that he is running. While no money has yet been pledged it was agreed that such a campaign requires considerable time and that the current goal of $60,000 should continue. The board was asked to send suggestions for further corporate prospects directly to Mr. Costello at tmcostello_20171@yahoo.com. 2001 Forum The Forum, held in December at the University of Virginia, was held to be a great success and the Board thanked John Unsworth for hosting it so well. The Forum Working Group recommended that the basic formula for the Forum be unchanged and that we look into a meeting hosted by the Getty. Members will be consulted about the viability of a west coast meeting over the suggested window of December 6-8. Strategic Planning It was agreed that a Strategic Planning Committee be convened to consider NINCH’s Program and that some preliminary recommendations be made at the next Board meeting. Stan Katz agreed to appoint members of the committee and invited the names of suitable nominees, including those of non-Board members. New Initiatives Preservation: David initiated discussion with an outline proposal for NINCH to work with others to organize a digital preservation meeting that would present the issues from across the entire community to reveal new lines of research and cooperation. However, in the light of the “National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program," a collaborative effort coordinated by the Library of Congress, (see http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2001/01-006.html) it was suggested that NINCH consider what its most effective role might be as the strategic plan emerged from the Library of Congress. Duane Webster suggested this be part of the agenda of the NINCH Strategic Planning Committee. Century Foundation’s Digital Promise The Century Foundation’s proposal to use the projected $18 billion in revenues from digital spectrum auctions to develop digital programs in the public interest was discussed to see whether the board felt there was a role here for NINCH. The Board advised a wait-and-see attitude but still recommended sending a letter from NINCH expressing our interest in some degree of involvement. With no further new business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 2:45pm.   FULL REPORT 1. MINUTES OF December 1, 2000 MEETING (see online). Stanley Katz asked for additions or corrections to the minutes. Sam Sachs moved to approve, Kathleen seconded, and the motion was approved. As Chuck Henry was unable to assume the presidency this year, the board at the last meeting developed a process to select another President Elect who would become President next year. A nominating committee was formed and Samuel Sachs was selected. Stan asked for a vote on the nomination and it was unanimously approved. PROGRAM REPORT Copyright Town Meeting On the copyright town meetings, Stan commented that the Report on the 2000 meetings was excellent in itself and tangible evidence of the work that NINCH is doing. David Green summarized the meetings and the Report, noting that he and Christine Sundt had recently given a briefing on the project at the Spring CNI meeting. David noted a shift in the community from confusion and dismay to a greater understanding of developments and a sense of empowerment. The “bundle” of issues related to IP is growing. NINCH is now planning for 2002 and David has had conversations with the Center for the Public Domain, a foundation that is interested in supporting meetings next year, including one at the New School, New York, and one hosted by the Center in North Carolina. Christine Sundt described the stages of community reaction, reassessment and pro-action she had observed over the past 3 years and, feeling that keeping a record is an important aspect of the project, noted a website of resources for the Town Meetings that she has developed http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/cweb.htm to complement the record NINCH itself was keeping. At the time of the meeting, the Kress Foundation had not informed NINCH about its funding the series for 2001, but we have subsequently received notification that it will fully fund the series again at $40,000. David Green expressed his gratitude to Charles Henry for underwriting the meeting held at Rice University. To a question whether interest on campus in these issues is growing, Chris Sundt replied that it is. Faculty, for example, are paying more attention to their assignment of copyrights to publishers. But we need much more education in this arena, especially in regard to the lack of responsibility of the “owners” once they receive copyright from authors. There was some discussion of policy and legislative issues. Melissa Levine discussed the appropriation to the Library of Congress for the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program that includes intellectual property issues. Duane Webster asked that LC ensure community involvement in setting policies and examining issues. Shifting back to the Town Meetings, Stan Katz encouraged more attention be given to music, given the Napster controversy. Stan is also seriously concerned about the preservation issue given the recent book,Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper, by Nicholson Baker and the review article by Robert Darnton in the April 26 issue of The New York Review of Books: “The Great Book Massacre.” <http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?20010426016R>. We need to better inform the broader public about the issues. David said that he’d like to link it to a proposed NINCH agenda for preservation. One result of the Town Meetings is the development of an IP Action Agenda to focus on non-legislative action that NINCH could work on itself or with partners. The agenda will be created via one or two invitational conferences. An expanded working group is working on this. It will develop a statement of principles, working with the Library and IP Committee of the National Humanities Alliance Guide to Good Practice David distributed the survey reports completed by our contractors, the Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute (HATII) of Glasgow University. This project had been delayed by contract negotiations but is now proceeding well. The Working Group feels confident about the consultants at this point, had a successful two-day meeting earlier this spring, and will be meeting in Glasgow with the full team July 5-6 to review the first draft of the Guide. David said he feels the Guide will make a significant impact on the field. He will be speaking about it at the WWW conference in Hong Kong (May) and the EVA conference in Glasgow (July). Publication plans are being developed, although there is uncertainty about whether a hard-copy publication is needed in addition to web publication. The Working Group thinks there would be some PR value to publishing the Guide although the format is more suitable to the web. Kathleen McDonnell suggested that a shorter hard-copy publication, something between a brochure and the complete Guide, might be a good companion piece to the Web publication. NINCH needs to apply for funding for the publishing of the Guide, whether it is web-based or in print or both. The Working Group also agreed to constitute an editorial board that would be selected for their expertise in a particular area and would update sections of the Guide. John Unsworth expressed concern that the survey was oriented towards libraries and institutions rather than individual scholars. Although David replied that the Guide will address that constituency, John suggested organizing some focus groups of our intended audiences. Subsequently, this concern has been duly noted by the Working Group and consultants. Database of Digital Humanities Projects The database with sample records from 110 NEH-funded projects now exists on a server at the University of Michigan and is being managed by staff at Rice University and the Universities of Michigan and Virginia. Project directors are being contacted to update their records. In conversations with NEH staff, John Unsworth reported enthusiasm for the project, eagerness to see results and to contribute more records. After completing and demonstrating the prototype with a formal launch, the next step will be to add entries from projects funded by other agencies. To a question about funding John replied that the institutions are supporting it. David Green thanked Chuck Henry, John Price Wilkin and John Unsworth for their support of the project. He expected funders would pay a fee to have their records included in this database. Mellon was one candidate. Stan Katz mentioned that his Princeton Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies has funding from Pew to establish an arts policy data archive based at the Princeton Library. Stan is seeking an assistant director to work with the data. Building Blocks The Rockefeller and Delmas Foundations were pleased with the initial project reports on the Building Blocks workshop. Two project proposals (history and performing arts) resulting from the meeting are currently before the NSF. The Visual Arts group was actively developing a federated database proposal. Two proposals from the History Cooperative were being presented to its board, and the Modern Language Association had recommended further development of a peer review project proposed by the Language and Literature group. The Building Blocks steering committee should be convened later this spring. Computer Science & Humanities Conference The Carnegie Corporation has funded the first conference; Stan and Chuck are co-chairing a planning committee that will be meeting mid-May. We plan to stage the conference in Spring 2002. There are some fascinating collaborations underway and the timing seems just right for this conference. It has potential to have national impact. Business Models Conference Stan reported that this was one of the best conferences he had attended: all participants were engaged and energized and the presentations and examples were excellent. Chuck Henry commented on how to discuss failed business plans and the need to get some of that information out. A report will be published later this Spring by CLIR. NINCH had agreed to gather information in tandem with CLIR on user studies and examples of successful collaborations. Publishing a selection of business models was another proposed future activity. This subject was seen as an important one to continue work on. Advocacy/Public Policy Working Group David reported that, although this had been the most active and influential of working groups in NINCH’s early history, it had lost some of its impetus. Given NINCH’s movement away from “advocacy” and given our strong interest in policy development, it was suggested that the group be re-constituted as a Public Policy Working Group, chaired by Patricia Williams. The Board agreed with this and looked forward to the outline and charge for this group. REVIEW OF NINCH MATERIAL David reviewed the components of NINCH’s public materials and statements and asked for comments on the effectiveness of what exists and for proposed changes. Brochure Stan commented on the need for broad language; he believes that the existing statements in the brochure are still current. Some board members suggested changing the look of the logo, and Stan suggested that only a limited amount of funds be spent on this. Inserts could be added to the brochure to keep information current. Stan and Chuck volunteered to work with David on the materials. Copyright & Advocacy Statements Stan suggested that the copyright statement be revised by a joint NINCH/NHA working group. Stan discussed the background of the advocacy statement, which is fairly restrictive due to the constraints of some of our members, such as government agencies. The group discussed the ins and outs of advocacy. Stan feels the advocacy statement is too cautious and should emphasize policy more, and not just education. It could be renamed the NINCH Public Policy Statement. The revision was assigned to the Public Policy working group. Melissa Levine agreed to join that group. 2001-2004 Generally the Board approved of the “NINCH 2001-2004” document; Stan suggested that Board members send further comments to David after the meeting and that a statement on NINCH’s public policy role be added. BUDGET Joan and David reviewed the budget and financial statements. With income and assets for the NINCH general office of $230,000 for the 15-month FY2000, NINCH carried forward a balance of $13,000, after expenses of $217, 000 (including $10,000 deposited in a fund reserve). With program income of $270,000 (Copyright Town Meetings, Building Blocks and the Guide to Good Practice) and expenditure of $216,000, NINCH carried forward $54,000 for completion of the Guide. With FY2001 office income projected at $270,000, the current office budget stands at $256,000 (including the Assistant to the Director working full-time from July 2, 2001). Christine Sundt moved to approve the budget, Kathleen seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Accountant/Auditor – David proposed a change in accountant/auditor, employing Elizabeth McMaster, the accountant employed by the National Humanities Alliance. Michael moved to approve the new auditor; Chuck seconded; the motion approved unanimously. David asked that it be put into the record that we thank ARL for facilitating the transfer of administrative functions from ACLS to ARL. Report On Dues And Membership Since December we added 14 new members, including several associations who joined due to their participation in Building Blocks. The new member making the biggest contribution ($5,000) is OCLC. We currently have pledges for $136,500, which includes the loss of $3,000 from CLIR (due to a reciprocal membership arrangement) and reduction by $5,000 in dues from ACLS). We still hope to bring in a large number of museums to match the ARL individual library members. MLA has dropped membership. There was discussion of whether we need to move to a more scale-based membership dues structure. Corporate Council Report Thomas Costello, recommended by Pat Williams, and engaged to conduct a corporate campaign, joined the meeting to report on the Council. The objective is to have 6 corporations commit to $10,000/year for three years. These companies would be non-competing businesses that would have interest in NINCH’s agenda. He presented a list of potential institutions and contacts and asked the group for leads or other contacts. We need to be able to articulate in concrete terms what NINCH will accomplish. Although there was some suggestion of lowering the membership fee, Chuck noted that these kinds of conversations, in his experience, take time but if choreographed well should result in contributions. Tom agreed and wants to continue the current strategy until the end of the year. Stan then suggested, and the Board agreed, that we keep with the current strategy until the next Board meeting. David asked us to express our thanks to Chuck, who is paying Tom’s fee. Board members are asked to send comments and contact names to Tom Costello tmcostello_20171@yahoo.com. 2001 Forum Stan commented that our first Forum, held in December at the University of Virginia, was terrific and thanked John for hosting it so successfully. The Forum Working Group recommended that the basic formula for the Forum be unchanged and that we look into a meeting hosted by the Getty. Stan suggested a survey of members to ask how many would attend a west coast meeting and whether the suggested window of December 6-8 was viable. Strategic Planning David asked whether we needed to re-constitute a Strategic Planning Committee to consider NINCH’s Program. Joan strongly agreed and suggested that some preliminary recommendations be made at the next Board meeting. Kathleen and Stan concurred. Stan said he will appoint members of the committee. He asked for suggestions to be sent to him, especially for people not on the Board. NEW INITIATIVES Preservation David presented a US Preservation Coalition Proposal, modeled on one formed by the JISC in the UK. This would lead to a summit meeting for presentation of issues and to reveal potential new lines of research and cooperation. Melissa Levine briefly described the work of the LC committees set up to implement the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. Kathleen asked if there is a specific piece of the preservation agenda that NINCH could serve, rather than convening a summit. Melissa suggested that developing principles by humanities communities, discipline by discipline, might be useful. John suggested that technical standards might be a focus for NINCH. Melissa agreed that NINCH could convene standards people from different communities. Chris suggested something like the town meetings, with open forums. Chuck said we need to understand the political waters clearly before we begin. Joan suggested that NINCH focus on educational goals. Melissa offered that NINCH should become involved in some of the LC’s proposed work on digital preservation. Duane suggested that this should come out of the strategic planning sessions with a consideration of focus and resources. Century Foundation’s Digital Promise David described the announcement of a proposal by the Century Foundation to use millions of dollars coming from spectrum auction to develop digital programs in the public interest. Tom Kalil presented this concept at the CNI meeting. This year they will gather ideas on how the money might be spent, and next year they will work on getting legislation passed. Duane suggested a watch and wait strategy for NINCH. Joan suggested including it in the Forum. Christine mentioned that Tom Kalil did not address the sustainability issue. Stan feels it’s very unlikely. However, he suggested NINCH send a letter to the head of the project expressing our interest in becoming involved. Next meeting – probably week of Dec. 7/8. Stan asked for new business and none was raised. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 PM.