Envisioning the Future
of the Great Lakes
Information Network
��� �
���������
Wingspread
August 20-22, 2003
Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ Overview of Event ............................................................................................................ Discoveries / Results ........................................................................................................ Products • Wingspread Vision for GLIN .............................................................................. • Five‐year Strategic Plan (2004‐2008)................................................................... • GLIN 10th Anniversary Multimedia Presentation ............................................ • Regional Data Exchange Conference Plan ........................................................ Proceedings • Breakout Reports................................................................................................... Content ...................................................................................................... Technology ............................................................................................... Sustainability ............................................................................................ • Keynote Presentation ........................................................................................... Huntington Williams, III ‐ President, Merit Network, Inc. ...................... Appendices......................................................................................................................... • Agenda • List of Participants • Great Lakes Commission Presentations 3 5 6 11 11 16 16 19 19 31 43 53 63 Our Legacy and Our Future Dr. Michael J. Donahue, President/CEO Defining Objectives Christine Manninen, Program Manager Communications and Internet Technology Key Outcomes and Next Actions: Roger Gauthier, Program Manager Data and Information Management Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 1
Page 2
Great Lakes Information Network Acknowledgments The Great Lakes Commission thanks The Johnson Foundation for their generous support of this event. Special thanks also are extended to members of the GLIN Advisory Board and staff (past and present) and, in particular, the individuals who attended the Wingspread event for the time, inspiration and ideals of partnership, which they contributed. Discovery consists in seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought. ‐‐ Albert von Szent‐Gyorgyi, biochemist (1898‐1986) Technology is the enabler. ‐‐ John Naisbitt, futurist, 2001 Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 3
Page 4
Great Lakes Information Network Overview of Event A diverse group of stakeholders, with a shared interest in Great Lakes communications gathered at Wingspread Aug. 20‐22, 2003, to help map out the future of the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN: www.great‐lakes.net). One of the Great Lakes Commission’s longest‐running and most successful projects, GLIN is a regional information portal for and about the Great Lakes region of North America. As a clearinghouse for data and information about the environment, economy and recreational sectors, GLIN provides: • Free and open exchange of data and information among members and the larger Great Lakes ‐ St. Lawrence River community • Targeted education and outreach on the Great Lakes ecosystem to promote stewardship of basin resources • Data, models and systems to assist research, management, planning and policy development •
Communication tools (e.g., e-mail discussion groups) to facilitate information exchange and
support regional decisionmaking
The Wingspread conference focused on how GLIN can best fulfill its roles as a regional data repository and information‐sharing tool for more fully engaging the public in Great Lakes restoration and water management planning efforts. The group addressed key questions about GLIN content, new technologies, and opportunities to ensure the sustainability of its services. These discussions provided the basis for the Wingspread Vision for GLIN, a guiding statement for the project, and informed development of a five‐year strategic plan (see p. 9). Hosted by The Johnson Foundation, the conference also marked the 10th anniversary of the GLIN initiative. GLIN went online in July 1993 as one of the first web sites serving a multi‐state, binational community. The GLIN portal now boasts more than 4 million “page visits” per month and is widely used by policymakers in the region and worldwide. Anniversary celebrations will culminate with a large, regional data exchange conference in fall 2004. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 5
Discoveries / Results What happened because we met at Wingspread? First and foremost, the discussions at Wingspread solidified the fact that the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) needs to enhance communications with its partners – the multitudes of Great Lakes organizations who are, essentially, the content providers for GLIN. GLIN has historically been an open‐ended, regional partnership for information sharing. Perhaps, too open‐ended. There has never been a monetary cost or written obligation required to be part of the GLIN community. A GLIN partner has been loosely defined as a Great Lakes‐
related agency, organization or association in the public or private sector that works with the GLIN project team at the Great Lakes Commission to integrate their web site offerings into the GLIN indices and otherwise promote GLIN. The founding GLIN partners are the handful of agencies and foundations who stepped up to the plate in the early 1990s and helped to conceptualize GLIN and laid the groundwork for its development. These groups saw the value of the Internet in uniting the binational Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River basin, which constitutes eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces and is home to more than 35 million people. Dating back to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the region’s legacy of cooperation on water use, management and protection was nothing new. However, taking the binational collaboration to the Internet was a tremendous leap forward. Other regions from around the world continue to look to GLIN as a communications model for stewardship of a shared watershed. Many of the original GLIN partners contributed funds to support content development and staffing for GLIN at the Great Lakes Commission. Other partners provided equipment, server space, training and management guidance through the GLIN Advisory Board. Others may have contributed by simply providing web resources for GLIN to integrate and publicize. As a result, the term “GLIN partner” has come to mean different things over the past decade and has largely lost importance as the Internet revolution has fully engulfed the region. 10 years ago only a handful of Great Lakes organizations had web sites and email accounts but, today, you would be hard pressed to find someone without these e‐conveniences. Also, access to the Internet and email is now very much a mobile function, no longer a desk‐only medium or only available to the wealthy. Statistics say that upwards of 580 million people worldwide now have Internet access. Since 1984 in the United States, the percentage of the population with home access to computers has steadily increased from 15 percent to 78 percent in 2003. Home Internet access now stands at 52 percent of U.S. households. Discussions at Wingspread also revealed two interrelated questions that GLIN must address before it can move to the next level in its development. Page 6
Great Lakes Information Network • Should GLIN remain neutral on all issues? • Should GLIN create “value added” content or only link to existing resources? Interesting quotes from participants: Regarding ‘objectivity’ “To remain credible, GLIN must remain neutral.” “Remaining neutral places boundaries on GLIN’s content. We need to ask ourselves whether we want those boundaries.” “Is GLIN truly an objective source of information or is there an inherent bias brought on by GLIN being a project of the Great Lakes Commission?” “Is GLIN actually doing the Great Lakes a disservice by remaining largely neutral on topics such as invasive species, water conservation and nonpoint source pollution?” Regarding ‘content’ “GLIN should play a key role in data/information synthesis and making topics understandable for a lay audience.” “Is GLIN really educating the public by only presenting facts and topics about the Great Lakes environment and economy with minimal interpretation?” At Wingspread, GLIN partners and staff had the chance to step back from their computers for a few days and examine the history of GLIN but, more importantly, the next strategic directions that the project must take in order to survive. In the fast‐paced online world with technology changing daily, GLIN must stay ahead of the wave. The first step in the ‘redefining’ process was drafting a Wingspread Vision for GLIN and a five‐
year strategic plan, which is included on the pages that follow. Four key content areas were identified: • Relationships In order for GLIN to better plan its future, a thorough assessment of the GLIN user community is needed. A re‐evaluation of GLIN’s management and governance structure Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 7
•
•
•
is also necessary to address new and expanding staffing requirements and content management decisionmaking. Content and Services GLIN will maintain a vital role in the unification, open exchange and accessibility of regional knowledge on the environment and economy. Usability GLIN utilizes cutting edge technology and design to deliver intuitive, high‐performance products. Enhancing the usability and accessibility of GLIN is crucial to preserving and expanding its audience and regional influence. Sustainability Regional partnerships, planning and stable sources of revenue are essential to the long‐
term sustainability of GLIN. New funding initiatives will support the ongoing creation and maintenance of innovative products and services. To ensure the goals expressed in the strategic plan are achieved, an annual workplan will be developed to guide internal operation and staffing for GLIN at the Great Lakes Commission. Page 8
Great Lakes Information Network Products
Wingspread Vision for GLIN The Great Lakes Information Network will be the definitive source of timely, objective and accurate information supporting environmental conservation and sustainable growth for the binational Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River system. GLIN Five‐Year Strategic Plan (2004‐2008)
INTRODUCTION Since its inception in 1993, the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) has endeavored to provide timely and comprehensive data and information on the environment and economy to the region’s scientists, managers, policymakers and residents. Through the Internet and related e‐
communication tools, GLIN and its partners have fostered the regional sharing of knowledge and advancement of communications technologies to drive sound science and policy. GLIN has evolved into a prominent regional voice, balancing Great Lakes environmental needs with economic and societal priorities. As a second decade now begins for GLIN, its content, look, delivery methods and sustainability are paramount issues. A broad categorical review of GLIN content is a continual process. GLIN managers and partners seek to define information needs, data gaps and resource connectivity as it relates to the ever‐
changing physical, societal and political relationships of the Great Lakes basin. As a vanguard in communications technology, GLIN looks to the future to delineate and integrate tools that will enhance regional communication and cooperation. Lastly, to ensure relevant content development and application of technology, GLIN must address the sustainability of its operations. The following is a strategic look at GLIN and the processes and actions to be taken over the next five years, as identified by a core group of experts and GLIN partners in summer 2003. This document is intended to be reviewed on a biennial basis. HISTORY OF GLIN DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT In 1991, the Great Lakes region began exploring the use of Internet‐based communications to cultivate an ecosystem‐based approach to the management of its natural, cultural and economic resources. By mid‐1993, a critical mass of agencies and organizations in the Great Lakes region agreed to develop GLIN to facilitate the linking of data, information and professionals in many disciplines, agencies and jurisdictions. The GLIN pilot identified a keen interest in the project, as well as a large potential user community that included researchers, policymakers, industry leaders, and citizens from across the region and around the world. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 11
GLIN began as a Gopher server, the Internet technology of choice at the time. As the World Wide Web gained prominence on the Internet, GLIN made the switch in 1994. In the years since, GLIN usage has grown exponentially. Because of its regional voice and role in serving the Great Lakes states/provinces, the Great Lakes Commission was uniquely suited to lead the GLIN initiative. The Great Lakes Commission continues to manage the project and ensure staffing for GLIN design, funding and day‐to‐day maintenance. SECTION 1: RELATIONSHIPS In order for GLIN to better plan its future, a thorough assessment of the GLIN user community is needed. A constant feedback cycle should be developed so users can communicate with GLIN developers on a regular basis. A re‐evaluation of GLIN’s management and governance structure is also necessary to address new and expanding staffing requirements and content management decisionmaking. Goal Define and communicate with the GLIN audience. Actions • Conduct ongoing assessments of the GLIN user community, including detailed analyses of GLIN usage patterns over time • Survey GLIN visitors to identify user habits and content preferences. • Facilitate focus groups to help identify content and technology needs. • Query users about paying for value‐added services on GLIN, which might include customized content for various user groups. • Actively promote and market GLIN to the wider audience of potential users in and beyond the Great Lakes region. Goal Enhance partnerships with information providers. Actions • Establish points of contact within key Great Lakes agencies and organizations to provide research/news/policy updates to GLIN on a regular basis. • Promote the value of GLIN to partner organizations. • Develop tiered levels of partnership, based on agency/organization contributions to GLIN. • Provide technical training and related perks for active GLIN partners. These may include a multi‐server search function, web conferencing tools and web design services. Goal Formalize and invigorate the governance structure for GLIN. Page 12
Great Lakes Information Network Actions • Develop Memorandums of Agreement with the Great Lakes states/provinces to define and formalize their involvement in GLIN. • Establish an elected Advisory Board, with the Great Lakes Commission as secretariat. • Outline the duties and expectations of the Advisory Board members and the Board, as a whole. SECTION 2: CONTENT AND SERVICES GLIN will maintain a vital role in the unification, open exchange and accessibility of regional knowledge on the environment and economy. Goal Expand GLIN content relevant to its mission of balancing environmental needs with economic and societal priorities. Actions • Catalog published research and data on the region’s air, water and land resources, flora and fauna, people and culture, and economic activities. Search and delivery of this information will include multi‐server functionality. • Develop and promote data access, synthesis and evaluation tools. Products of this effort will include a data sharing network, distributed web mapping and a geospatial data collaborative. • Establish a homeport for the Great Lakes Observing System, in line with the standards and practices as a regional node of the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Goal Develop new and refine existing services to better share the content of GLIN. Actions • Expand the GLIN Daily News audience and services to include more media sources and targeted features on timely issues. • Provide state/provincial and federal legislative updates on matters of the environment, economy and health. • Use GLIN to promote environmental restoration and sustainable growth. • Expand the use of GLIN at all education levels. • Create GLIN forums to promote collaboration between research, management and policy communities. Goal Expand GLIN content and services to provide an enhanced geographic perspective to regional information. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 13
Actions • Maintain and update the GLIN servers as registered nodes in the Federal Geographic Date Committee (FGDC) Clearinghouse Network. Continuously populate metadata for regional geospatial datasets, in cooperation with collaborators. • Provide clearinghouse support for regional data exchange efforts and house orphaned geospatial data for the region. • Develop and promote distributed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) web mapping applications. • Develop a consistent interface for interactive web mapping tools involving collaborators from various U.S. and Canadian governmental agencies, academic institutions, Native American communities and non‐governmental organizations. • Develop GLIN satellite and aerial imagery access portal. SECTION 3: USABILITY GLIN utilizes cutting edge technology and design to deliver intuitive, high‐performance products. Enhancing the usability and accessibility of GLIN is crucial to preserving and expanding its audience and regional influence. Goal Incorporate advanced communication technologies into GLIN to maximize its stature and enhance its usability. Actions • Promote accessibility and usability through adherence to web standards and best design practices. • Add real‐time communications tools to GLIN, such as webcams and web conferencing. • Offer customized data delivery based on user preferences. • Implement distributed web mapping software and capabilities. • Coordinate development and implementation of data content standards. Goal Develop and promote advanced search tools to enhance data discovery. Actions • Enhance GLIN search tools and functionality through upgraded software and metadata standards. • Develop and promote searchable GLIN photo gallery. Goal Promote GLIN beyond the desktop. Page 14
Great Lakes Information Network Actions • Maintain GLIN’s technological leadership through innovative communications. • Monitor trends in wireless communication and explore opportunities to adapt GLIN products and services (e.g., news, lake conditions, tourism information, GIS data) for wireless audiences. • Explore new platforms and uses for GLIN products and services, including information kiosks and interactive media. SECTION 4: SUSTAINABILITY Regional partnerships, planning and stable sources of revenue are essential to the long‐term sustainability of GLIN. New funding initiatives will support the ongoing creation and maintenance of innovative products and services. Goal Increase awareness and use of GLIN both within and beyond the Great Lakes region. Actions • Conduct periodic promotional campaigns showcasing GLIN tools and services, as well as the GLIN brand. • Place advertising and/or conduct face‐to‐face promotion at conferences and other organization’s meetings. • Establish systems for ongoing feedback from users, partners, affiliates and other GLIN stakeholders. Goal Develop sustainable revenue streams for GLIN. Actions • Conduct market analysis leading to development of long‐term business plan. • Explore feasibility and potential impacts of establishing GLIN as an independent non‐
profit. • Pursue large‐scale, multiyear grants from government agencies, community foundations and other philanthropic entities. • Consider licensing GLIN products to partners and affiliates. • Explore additional revenue streams such as commercial advertising. • Consider charging fees for GLIN premium services such as listserv hosting, image gallery and customized searches. • Establish GLIN online storefront to market promotional products such as t‐shirts, coffee mugs, stickers, Circle Tour maps, etc. • Leverage cost reductions from network suppliers. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 15
GLIN 10th Anniversary Multimedia Presentation View at www.glin.net/10th To help celebrate GLIN’s 10th anniversary, the Great Commission developed an interactive, multi‐media program highlighting the project’s history and features. The audio slideshow traces the evolution of GLIN and highlights a few of its many products and services, including BeachCast, Daily News, Lake Conditions, Maps & GIS and T.E.A.C.H. Also included are comments from GLIN partners and supporters, and an overview of the Wingspread Conference and planning efforts for GLIN’s next decade. The GLIN 10th anniversary web site was created by Spinster Design and the Great Lakes Commission. Images and music were provided courtesy of Karl Flessa, Jason Grow, Brad Jaeck Photographic Design, John and Ann Mahan, and Wilco. GLIN Regional Data Exchange Conference Plan Substantial need exists to coordinate the diverse and sometimes disparate data holdings, information access systems, computer models and decision support tools that deal with Great Lakes ‐ St. Lawrence River resource management. Regional coordination programs currently exist that are directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great Lakes Commission and Environment Canada, among others. Each state and province has methods for internal coordination, however, these current mechanisms do not target coordination of integrated and interoperable information systems across the region. To promote information coordination, a large‐scale regional data exchange conference is planned for fall 2004 (tentative date: Nov. 3‐5 in Detroit, Michigan). The target audience will be federal, state/provincial and academic information technology (IT) professionals and data users to focus on integrated and interoperable regional information systems. Conference co‐sponsorship will be explored with federal, state, provincial agencies and non‐
governmental organizations across the region. This meeting may become an annual or biennial event. [Editor’s Note: The inaugural Great Lakes Regional Data Exchange (RDX) Conference was held Oct. 26‐
28, 2004, at the Detroit Marriott Renaissance Center in Detroit, Mich. More than 150 Great Lakes information managers participated and dialogue focused on establishing a reliable data support mechanism for the Great Lakes region. The event featured more than 45 contributed papers, as well as plenary sessions, training seminars and focus group discussions. The RDX Conference will be pursued as a biennial event with the next event tentatively planned for spring 2006 in New York State. See http://rdx.glc.org for 2004 conference proceedings.] Page 16
Great Lakes Information Network Proceedings
New Content for GLIN: Environment Facilitator: Scudder Mackey, S.D. Mackey & Associates Recorder: Shannon Glutting, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Lois Morrison, The Nature Conservancy Scott Painter, Environment Canada Jill Ryan, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Discussion topics Who is our audience? We should conduct research/surveys to better know what content to provide Do we want to limit our content to neutral/non‐biased information, or should we expand to opinionated/interpreted content? Could expand our range and amount of content Could reduce the amount of visitors because of different opinions on issues Could decrease GLIN’s trust/credibility Could create a stronger association with the Great Lakes Commission, an advocacy organization Expanding current content ideas Focus attention on current issues that people are interested in Expand content in areas such as: Invasive species Water use/supply/quantity Understanding groundwater Conservation information for citizens Climate change impact Wetlands restoration Land use projects/information New content ideas Enhance the Economy/Commerce section to focus more on how the economy is related to and influences the environment Create a section on GLIN focused on the Great Lakes Restoration Plan Could feature information on the Plan’s history how we got to this point what organizations are involved what will be affected by the plan, who will benefit Concentrate on how GLIN and the Great Lakes sit in a global environment Relate issues such as pollutants, exotic species, inputs/outputs of industry to the global causes (where do they come from?) Partner with more national and international organizations Make links from local info. Æ regional Æ world Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 19
One example would be a “where are the boats” section featuring information on boats that sail in and out of the Great Lakes Real‐time data of location/speed/etc. Webcams to show pictures where they are around the world Future “Out‐of‐the‐box” ideas Have more interaction between GLIN users and GLIN staff to generate new content and see what environmental trends are important to the user Create some kind of two‐way communication tool such as a chat room or bulletin board to increase speed of communication and get new ideas from users Sponsor listservs for Communities of Practice (virtual networks of people with a common interest) This will give GLIN promotional benefits through word‐of‐mouth. Perhaps create a logo to automatically attach to every email sent out. Will give GLIN staff the advantage of knowing what current issues people are taking an interest in and who to communicate with to find out more information. Page 20
Great Lakes Information Network New Content for GLIN: Economy Facilitator: Recorder: Participants: Peter Knupfer, MATRIX/Center for Great Lakes Culture Jon MacDonagh‐Dumler, Great Lakes Commission Lori Cary‐Kothera, NOAA Coastal Services Center Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Industries Ken Theis, State of Michigan Hunt Williams, Merit Network Questions • What do we expect the user to do with these data? • Who is the target audience? • What are their critical information needs? • Does the Great Lakes think of itself as a region? • Is there a “Great Lakes economy” (considered in the aggregate) that is wholly or largely dependent on the Great Lakes resource? Observations • The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago doesn’t include all of the Great Lakes basin so it cannot be the sole source of statistics on the economy • Use SOLEC indicators to guide the selection of data sets that would address specific issues • Need to focus on all the elements of economic activity that are affected by or are dependent upon the Great Lakes Recommendations • GLIN web content for the “Economy” section must address three key elements of sustainable development: o Social needs o Economy o Environment • Provide annotations along with the economic data, as well as objective analysis – while avoiding advocacy for a particular position or interpretation • Provide easily accessible economic data on sectors of both the Canadian and U.S. economies • Recruit an economist who can analyze economic data and communicate it meaningfully • Establish a Committee on the Great Lakes Economy, as a component of the GLIN Advisory Board, which would guide data selection and analysis Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 21
New Content for GLIN: Recreation Facilitator: Elizabeth LaPorte, Michigan Sea Grant Recorder: Stuart Eddy, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission David Hart, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Paul Roszkowski, U.S. Coast Guard Martha Waszak, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes One perception mentioned early on by this group was that recreation in the Great Lakes region is shifting from hunting and fishing toward a much broader selection of activities. This wasn’t something anyone had specific numbers for, so it may have been more of an impression than a conclusion. Also, people participating in many of these activities are willing to consider impacts on the environment. The Great Lakes region offers many opportunities for recreation and tourism, and GLIN can offer many resources that would inspire people’s interest or support the process of making decisions. Brief mention was made of the fact that agency emphasis varies. Some focus on traditional activities, others support emerging ones, but nearly all can feed information into GLIN or be a resource for GLIN users if links are in place. The focus then shifted to the Circle Tour and ways that theme could be incorporated into GLIN. The Circle Tour got a great deal of attention and remained a constant thread throughout the rest of the session. At least for the recreational element of GLIN, it seems like a logical place to put focused attention over the next several years. The group was definitely enthusiastic about connecting the Circle Tour and GLIN, and using GLIN resources to build an online supplement to Circle Tour activities: Circle Tour incorporation/enhancement: • GIS tools could enhance the views, maps and presentation of cultural features • Develop an online version of Fodor’s for the Great Lakes region • Develop virtual tours along the lines of those offered by realtors, aimed at sites of interest, areas of interest, … • Coordinate with Rand McNally, MapQuest or a similar company to get a general interest map service in place, then include/emphasize supplemental information and local business in exchange for support dollars • Incorporate “quaint” online signposts to local business into the site as a tasteful way to incorporate advertising? • Personalize the atmosphere o Make some elements of the Circle Tour customizable by interest, leading to Circle Tour variants like a focus on lighthouses, brewpubs, golf, etc. Additional options Page 22
Great Lakes Information Network •
for places to visit or things to do could then be offered within a category the way Amazon does with book title suggestions o Build in the capacity to store anecdotes submitted by interested travelers Possible ‘custom’ areas included camping, golfing, swimming, hunting, fishing, mushrooming, color tours, ice fishing (ice condition reports not likely due to liability?), personal watercraft, lighthouses, shipwrecks… Possible support sources included business (maybe cautiously), tourism offices… •
Additional notes for anything incorporated into a recreation setting: • Be cautious with facilitating exploitation of resources (e.g., salmon site locations via real‐
time AVHRR) • Include information about contribution opportunities, like an index of NPOs and donation types, and an index of volunteer activities/opportunities • Maintain GLIN’s education/awareness role, even within recreational topics • Include information on safety, ‘how‐to’ and other issues, not just ‘where to’ • Provide a channel for information distribution other than mail to regular users – BeachCast and other update services, interest groups that want to maintain a particular module… Other ideas: Could GLIN serve as a one‐stop shop for Great Lakes information, tuned to the season or activity? For example, a weather channel that talks to different audiences by season and activity (Great Lakes boaters for lake conditions, hikers/campers for overland storm potential, skiers or snowmobilers during the winter, etc.). Or maybe GLIN’s role is to facilitate the provision of that service by a commercial entity, rather than emulate it? GLIN (and government agencies) probably won’t be able to fulfill or sustain that role. Maybe GLIN builds in the safety information, key environmental points, etc., that don’t change, and links to a “Weather Channel” variant for whatever up‐to‐the‐minute information is being presented. One possible issue: Sea Grant and states can’t link to commercial sites; how much can GLIN? As part of taking this further, GLIN needs to explore options for business support. A major issue from this direction will be the extent to which GLIN content is affected by its funding sources. [Transcription note: The preceding point shifted the focus to sustainability questions. Everyone recognized this after a few minutes, but the following points evolved directly from the discussion that had been taking place and was viewed as a natural continuation by the participants:] The first and biggest question: Is a structural change needed? A GLIN foundation separate from the Great Lakes Commission? Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 23
Great Lakes Commission resources feed GLIN now. What impact does this have on content? What does this mean for future options? If left unchanged, what limitations does it imply? Are there possibilities (in this setting) for partnerships beyond grant $$ with other agencies or groups? Don’t go reinventing the wheel: • Boater safety gets handled by linking to the Coast Guard’s pages. At most, customize a boater safety link that bridges the gap between GLIN and their site • Direct interaction with Office of the Great Lakes for a module • Direct interaction with Sea Grant for another element or elements… How does the Site of the Month process work? Do we choose or do sites apply? Could this be leveraged to help add resources directly to GLIN, for instance by arranging for a GLIN link, or maybe even development of a module, by promising Site of the Month publicity? One element of GLIN’s development that needs to continue is getting appropriate links at the right locations (e.g., a link to the Coast Guard’s boating safety sites at all logical GLIN spots, and some that aren’t necessarily so obvious (Beaches…) Add to that the notion of content maintenance taking place at the specialized agencies, so that a non‐Great Lakes Commission person writes/updates modules that do show up. State tourism agencies are an obvious example for tourism/recreation. Frames and other web technologies allow direct inclusion of content from other sites. Again, some examples included content from state tourism agencies, Coast Guard boater safety, historic societies, Sea Grant/NOAA interaction with Coastwatch, etc. Even GLIN can’t be all things to all people. What will GLIN be? (Yes, the Vision Statement will help with many of those decisions.) Possible attractions for recreational users: • Map perspectives of looking at things • 3D renditions of major sites/areas • panoramic views of beaches, parks, local highlights • webcams • boat watching (already a web site devoted to the Great Lakes – www.boatnerd.com) • bird watching • lighthouses • shipwrecks In general, the information needs stem from four traditional questions ‐ What to do? Where to do it? How to do it? Where to find more info? Page 24
Great Lakes Information Network Other areas of the site may be more specialized, but recreation seems like a big potential draw area for the general public. Talk to a general public focus group (assuming the assumption holds that the public is the audience for the recreation topic) and to groups from specific recreational interest categories. More general outreach options also got attention: • Develop an information “push” tool for reaching recreational users, ala GLIN‐Announce • Stress the reciprocal GLIN links from any pages or sites GLIN includes • Explore ways of advertising GLIN o AOL keyword o Google spots o Kiosk for display at Cabela’s (they have an education and outreach person…), boat shows, S.S. Badger. This doesn’t have to be all fluff – it could easily include significant content aimed at the audiences likely to see it… o Sponsor NPR spots, e.g. Great Lakes Radio Consortium o Arrange ads or spots of some kind in magazines like National Geographic Traveler Of course the question that immediately comes to mind is “How does it get paid for?” No specific answers were provided. There was also brief mention of a thorough analysis of usage statistics. This came up because of the way it can show where users came from and where they went to next. If it’s worth the cost, it would give some indication of current patterns – where to find users and what services to consider offering them first. Key points as presented to the plenary group: 1. Expand Circle Tour connectivity so it includes/incorporates other online resources 2. Personalize elements like Circle Tour – make it customizable 3. Trends – work to explore/examine, anticipate 4. Convene periodic thematic/topical focus groups to help review and develop products 5. Expand partnerships aimed at content development 6. Expand connections to teaching and educational resources for specific users (boaters, swimmers, icefishers, K‐12, etc) from state/provincial/federal agencies (GLIN as a channel they can use to reach the public) 7. Invest in advertising and promotion of GLIN Possible recommendation for the “Education” section ‐ TEACH gets a separate recreation and tourism module. New Content for GLIN: Human Health Facilitator: Stephen Wittman, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 25
Recorder: Mike Donahue, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Jennifer Day, International Joint Commission Irvin Goldblatt, Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management Matt Mercurio, Institute for the Application of Geospatial Technology Dave Poulson, Michigan State University Nicholas Scipione, Wingspread Fellow Objective: Enhance GLIN’s role in providing timely, accurate and comprehensive information on the quality of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River system and its watersheds and its effect on human health and public welfare. Actions: • Promote consistency in public advisories for fish consumption • Improve the timeliness of beach health advisories and promote strategic in‐situ observations and real‐time assessments • Improve information resources on boating safety and lake level advisories • Provide avenue for information on the pathways of biological threats (e.g., pathogens in ballast waters), by utilizing GIS tools and improved data sharing between agencies • Work with appropriate authorities to identify sensitive data and information that needs to be protected to insure public security • Improve on‐line resources for use in emergency response systems • Work with wastewater managers and other appropriate entities to improve reporting and monitoring on non‐point source pollution loadings to the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River air, water and soil Major content issues to consider Fish advisories • Current advisories are competing, confusing and inconsistent • GLIN should address whether it can simply report on policy decisions or can influence them, or both • GLIN should promote sound policy by publicizing issues/problems • GLIN should provide historical perspective on contaminant levels Beach advisories • GLIN should promote real‐time reporting • GLIN should promote broader testing • GLIN should promote improved modeling and prediction • GLIN should promote broader sharing of research results • GLIN should provide more timely information on beach conditions and access Page 26
Great Lakes Information Network Wastewater management • There is a need for more public information on combined sewer overflows • GLIN could improve knowledge of non‐point pollution sources (e.g., urban / agricultural runoff) • GLIN could be a major mechanism for public reporting on emerging problems • GLIN could promote more volunteer monitoring by posting results and building upon existing networks • GLIN should make NPDES information more readily available Air quality • GLIN should improve the publication of emissions inventory work coordinated by the Great Lakes Commission • More work needs to be done to publicize the connections between air quality / water quality Emergency preparedness ‐ GLIN should improve real‐time information access for catastrophic events like power failures, toxic and contaminant spills affecting drinking water supplies, etc. Human health and safety ‐ GLIN should provide additional emphasis on publishing public interest statements on hypothermia, rip tides, boating safety, recreational dangers, lake levels problems, coastal erosion concerns, etc. Water security ‐ GLIN should work to improve the information base on perspective threats to the regions water resources from human and natural threats; focus should be made on the quality, access and availability of information. Human diseases • GLIN should publicize potential vectors for contamination (e.g., pathogens in ballast waters) • GIS mapping capabilities should be exploited more than they currently are • GLIN should promote research on prospective links between location and incidence of diseases • GLIN could assist in better defining homeland security considerations, particularly by promoting a dialogue on what information should or should not be available Contaminated sediments / human health implications ‐ GLIN should improve its posting of monitoring data. General issues Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 27
GLIN should review its role in advancing “smart management” at local levels. This would require a better knowledge of who constitutes GLIN’s audience. Identification of GLIN’s audience requires knowledge of how we get to them; some audiences require differing approaches. Evaluations of audiences need to consider what approaches complement and duplicate each other. GLIN can provide leadership in understanding which data need to be “translated” for acceptability by the public. This is especially important when considering highly technical information. The public frequently asks “So what?” when presented with technical or scientific information. GLIN has to be especially careful about advancing “information” that is advocacy driven, politically driven or otherwise based on questionable science. Page 28
Great Lakes Information Network New Content for GLIN: Research and Education Facilitator: Brian Huberty, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recorder: Christine Manninen, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Kurt Kowalski, USGS Great Lakes Science Center Margaret Lansing, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab Jim Nicholas, U.S. Geological Survey Pranas Pranckevicius, U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office Need: identify and make available (create a GLIN directory of) current/past research that has applicability for the Great Lakes. Need (of researchers): what related research is going on in different parts of the basin? How does it relate to my own projects or those of my agency? GLIN could provide synthesis tools for comparing and utilizing data sets (e.g., USGS stream flow data by lake basin). Need (of public): interpretation of the research, not the same detail needed by researchers. The public needs short, succinct research summaries that make sense to them and illustrate how the research relates to real‐world issues, activities. Research question the public frequently asks: “Are fish safe to eat?” A goal of GLIN should be to provide some minimal education of the public on Great Lakes research. By educating the public about the continual need for and benefits of scientific research…the public will in turn have the capacity to influence policymakers/legislators and secure research funding dollars. Need (of legislators and their staffs): similar needs as the public. They need to be able to interpret research and its results and how it relates to current Great Lakes issues and policy needs. Important to educate young congressional staffers about Great Lakes needs. Developing sound‐bite information is key to avoid information overload. Just the pertinent facts need to be relayed to lawmakers. Grouping research subject matters would be useful. Gray research, providing fact sheets or a universal search of abstracts. Every agency has a person(s) who is/are keenly aware of that agency’s research holdings, past and present. Can we start better utilizing the people in GLIN’s partner agencies? GLIN could better utilize the resources of the IJC’s Council of Great Lakes Research Managers. GLIN could potentially provide access to a much broader base of research, both past and present. Student help from the region’s universities could be tapped, esp. U‐Mich being based in Ann Arbor. Tapping the resources of professional organizations (e.g., American Water Resources Association) is another potential opportunity to build GLIN content. Cataloging “published” research reports on GLIN would be the logical place to start. Published reports are already in the public domain and would be fair game to feature/catalog on GLIN. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 29
As a way to begin, GLIN could be proactive in providing leadership in networking and data sharing between agencies in the new/proposed Great Lakes Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. Among the agencies to be included are Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, IAGLR and Michigan Sea Grant, among others. On the technology front, GLIN could benefit the research and education communities by promoting video transmission (web casting/conferencing) via the Internet. These communication tools can be one‐way or interactive. GLIN could host online conferences, classes, public comment forums, etc. GLIN is a great platform for this type of activity. Lakewide Management Planning forums and biennial IJC Public Forum especially could benefit from these tools to increase public input/comment for minimal expense. Other uses: online chats to collect input from parties geographically dispersed throughout the region, take surveys, host forums where the public can discuss or ask questions of researchers/policymakers. Could GLIN partner with local corporations who may already make this technology available. SBC? AT&T? Software companies based in the Great Lakes region? Compuware in Detroit? Idea: A mini‐yahoo search function could be added to GLIN to search for research‐related items on partners’ web sites. A metadata search could be the mechanism. Idea: Searchable abstracts of published research could be written specifically for GLIN (linking to the full, published articles and/or completed research reports). Through these mechanisms, GLIN could be a conduit for getting various groups to work together on research initiatives. Idea: Pick one topic per year that GLIN could expound upon and educate the public. Different modules of information could be developed to target various audiences with the information they need/want: scientists/researchers, policymakers/legislators, public). A forum could be created on GLIN where people could submit questions and GLIN partners could form a voluntary network to respond with answers. Question: The public cares about the issues but do they care about an agency like EPA specifically, the agency’s activities and how decisions are made? On the education front…can Great Lakes agencies (through GLIN) bring kids into their labs, involve them in sampling/research via the Web? One recent example is an online electron microscope that kids can control remotely via their keyboard. Kids can send in samples and then they’re given a date/time when their specimens will be available for viewing. Other tools for education: webcams, imagery catalog, remote sensing, photo galleries (searchable by location would be good). Teaming with NASA to regularly provide views of the lakes from space. GLIN could educate other Great Lakes agencies about maximizing search results using metadata tags. Page 30
Great Lakes Information Network Technology: Linkages With the Media Facilitator: Dave Poulson, Michigan State University (Environmental Journalism Program) Recorder: Christine Manninen, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Jennifer Day, International Joint Commission Elizabeth LaPorte, Michigan Sea Grant Martha Waszak, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Stephen Wittman, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute What can/should GLIN provide for the media? YES! The media has a close connection with the public and an informed public moves policy/legislation! Current problems with Great Lakes coverage by the media: ‐‐Inaccuracies ‐‐Missing the point in stories ‐‐Disconnect between what media wants to tell the public and what Great Lakes agencies feel the public needs to know ‐‐Media is understaffed, stretched too thin ‐‐Lack of reporters’ background/expertise on Great Lakes issues ‐‐Reporters dealing with incorrect Great Lakes sources (researchers/policymakers they’re familiar with or have worked with in the past but not the most appropriate sources to quote) Ideas • computer‐assisted reporting seminars (GLIN could partner with MSU’s Environmental Journalism Program and annual training institute). GLIN could offer tips for reporters on how better to use technology to gather and deliver stories. • GLIN Swat team could visit or communicate electronically with newspaper reporters to brief them on Great Lakes issues/resources • GLIN could “tip off” reporters, provide links, images, content for potential stories • regional image gallery of high resolution images suitable for newspaper publication. Immediacy/accessibility and sustainability of such an image gallery are two important considerations. • provide an Experts Directory with Great Lakes contacts that media can utilize for stories. GLIN partners could be at the top of the list. The partners, in turn, could refer reporters back to GLIN as a research tool. But is this sort of Experts Directory used by the media? Oftentimes not. Needs of media: ‐‐ need to interview “live” sources, not web sites ‐‐ often like to take a local angle to produce stories ‐‐ creative story ideas ‐‐ space to tell the story (editorial decisions often exclude/shorten environmental stories) Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 31
‐‐ reporters want to be the first and only to tell a story (the exclusive) ‐‐ accuracy in reporting; reporters don’t want to make errors Ideas • GLIN should be more transparent, esp. for media. Two clicks away for most info. GLIN might also better interpret the information, rather than just providing lists of links. • The GLIN Conference could include a session for media. • GLIN could offer press conferences several times per year or monthly for media. Representatives from GLIN partner agencies could be featured. Would help drive traffic to GLIN plus benefit GLIN partners who have limited communications budgets. GLIN partners have their niches. This type of opportunity would provide sources for reporters that they may not have otherwise thought of. GLIN might even host national, online video news conferences to broaden coverage of Great Lakes issues. • GLIN might give an annual award for best Great Lakes environmental news story. Winning story(ies) could be archived on GLIN. There’s a general trend toward convergence between different types of media (radio, print, TV, Internet). One problem, with a limited budget, is how to better market GLIN as a resource for the media. Could GLIN use the webmasters for various media outlets as a resource or “in”? Other ideas: A news tip e‐mail list for reporters, produced by GLIN and its partners. Are university news and information services depts. using GLIN to publish their relevant Great Lakes research? GLIN needs to make more creative, persistent connections with the public. Can GLIN be used to convince media companies that covering the Great Lakes/environment is important? Idea: GLIN (though its partners) could fund an internship at a regional media source. GLIN partners would be providing a free body to a newspaper, in exchange for environmental reporting coverage. The intern could also rotate among GLIN partner agencies. This would promote Great Lakes news coverage and also the use of GLIN by reporters. Page 32
Great Lakes Information Network Technology: Maps/GIS Facilitator: David Hart, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Recorder: Stuart Eddy, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Irvin Goldblatt, Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management Matt Mercurio, Institute for the Application of Geospatial Technology Mike Robertson, Land Information Ontario (via phone) By dealing with the Great Lakes as a region, GLIN already has a geographic frame for the information it offers. Maps and GIS data should be geospatially enabled as one means of access, and also indexed through a more traditional library‐like format. Level of service for maps and GIS on GLIN needs to be considered. There is a significant difference between the general public as an audience, looking for finished maps, overviews and summary information, and the researcher, looking for data in something closer to its raw form. GLIN can probably not be a “one tool that fits all.” Training to use research‐level data is not something GLIN can provide to the general public, nor will many agencies and institutions turn to GLIN to help them distribute their research‐level data. Parts of GLIN may well host data libraries, but most of these will be secondary (fed by links to main libraries at research agencies). Example libraries already in place in the region: • NYS Data Sharing Cooperative o Commercial firms are involved o Maintenance is an issue ƒ DOT does a good job ƒ In general, others do not… • Land Information Ontario o Geographic searches are possible o Serving large quantities of data at once is tough o Public and password‐protected views are both available o LIO serves as a data custodian o They have a publication/subscription service (publication role includes rules, e.g. using a single source for each data set) o LIO can provide modeled results o LIO can serve as a data exchange From a data serving standpoint, it is worth noting that real‐time data return not always necessary. Ontario has a central data warehouse right now through LIO, and large datasets are often not sent to the requester until evening low‐traffic hours. GLIN’s potential roles in mapping/GIS: • Map services for the region Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 33
•
•
•
•
3‐D depictions and modeling GIS “Starter Kits” Adoption assistance Coordination of mapping services housed at communities, state/federal agencies, etc. – link GIS services through an interface vs. providing full‐blown, self‐contained web applications GIS awareness‐building •
Mapping/GIS’s role for GLIN: • Partnerships/partnership building • Increased access to information • Applied uses of data, technology • Outreach • Public involvement • Environmental education Capacity Building Æ Tools Æ Audiences Æ back around to Capacity Building Be sure to leverage existing tools, e.g. Geospatial One‐Stop, NOS “Enterprise GIS,” etc. Mapping/GIS’s role for GLIN became the focus of the conversation for the last third of the session. Many topics important to potential GLIN users are well suited to mapping outputs. However, those outputs would come from studies GLIN might not be suited to carrying out. (One example: Permit tracking that can begin to show cumulative effects in areas or across the region.) The results could certainly be presented on GLIN, or perhaps multiple result sets could be collated by GLIN staff as part of developing a regional overview, but much of the initial work may belong at the scientific and academic study levels. GLIN may be a good channel for integration of data and service providers across the Great Lakes region. What’s the timetable? 3‐5 years? As an information network, GLIN is a possible focus for GIS data and services in the Great Lakes region. One such service GLIN already knows fits well: needs‐oriented, theme‐oriented canned map products for the region. A big need before most of this can be taken much farther: Define GLIN’s audience! (Possibly via a customer survey.) Page 34
Great Lakes Information Network Map products will probably play a big role for GLIN. On the Wisconsin government web site, the #1 search term is “maps.” Remote sensing output also draws a large and varied audience – products derived from satellite imagery and aerial photography are very popular. Lots of options exist at the regional level (Aster, Modis, NALC 70s/80s/90s triplicates, Radarsat). GLIN could serve as a facilitator/coordinator across agencies and jurisdictions in the region. Future roles/issues for mapping within GLIN: • Home for regional restoration effort coordination • Modeling/visualization tools for issues like lake levels, wetlands, invasives, sprawl… • Place such issues into a gaming environment – GLIN “Sim‐Basin”? • Add a fourth dimension to data where feasible • Inventory of data, assessment of challenges to integration o Policy hurdles o Use restrictions Key points as presented to the plenary group: 1. GLIN should play a role as a facilitator across agencies – provide a framework for data sharing 2. Technology changes so fast that 5‐10 years is difficult to predict – convene a focus group 3. Keep abreast of national and state programs for GIS/RS 4. Examine “GLIN’s role providing mapping” ‐vs.‐ “Mapping’s role within GLIN”. This will define much of the technical/technological need 5. Create a future home for modeling/visualization tools (“Sim‐Basin”) Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 35
Technology: Institutional Connectivity Facilitator: Scott Painter, Environment Canada Recorder: Mike Donahue, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Pranas Pranckevicius, U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office Paul Roszkowski, U.S. Coast Guard Hunt Williams, Merit Network Objective: Promote GLIN’s role as a regional facilitator for building institutional relationships for the efficient discovery, evaluation and access of data, information and knowledge using the Internet. Actions: 1. GLIN Advisory Board to coordinate content standards for the region. 2. GLIN staff to develop metadata clearinghouse and associated web services. 3. GLIN staff to develop “my GLIN” customization model for users. 4. GLIN Advisory Board to promote data discovery, evaluation, access model, provided wide integrated web services. Summary of discussion points: Institutional interconnectivity should rely primarily on information content and less on institutional missions. The content of information on GLIN needs to be determined by the Advisory Board, and maintained and updated by staff or partners. The GLIN Advisory Board should play a more overt role in deciding on the content on GLIN prior to developing links to additional sources. New information that can be provided through GLIN needs to be announced, along with an evaluation of the value of this information. Information should stay at its source, whenever possible. Institutions with missions for data collection or information distillation should be the primary stewards of these data. Procedures need to become universally adopted to identify older or legacy information which too frequently can be confused with newer information. This leads to promotion of standard metadata production to adequately document the relevance of information. The GLIN staff should work primarily at providing web services to push information to the user. Efforts should be placed on better assimilation of information content to make it more dynamic. As a community, Great Lakes information managers need to move beyond static html pages. The GLIN staff and Advisory Board should conduct more surveys of existing clients to determine what their needs are and how information is best provided to them. GLIN should be a “service provider.” An excellent example would be for GLIN to provide more robust information search and evaluation tools. Another good service would be to promote Page 36
Great Lakes Information Network online listing of experts for various topical areas and listings of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with points of contact for further detail. Many agencies and institutions can support GLIN financially, if GLIN provided specific services that were of additional value to the institution and/or its public users. The GLIN Advisory Board should educate IM/IT staff at the partner institutions to heighten awareness to new connectivity opportunities. The GLIN staff and Advisory Board should work toward user‐defined customization of content. Such an approach would allow users to tailor their information delivery needs and would help GLIN development by providing detailed information on user requirements. Interagency development of system modeling running on GLIN could be a major benefit, particularly for helping users to visualize complex relationships and processes; something like a “SIM‐Watershed” concept would have a lot of merit. Interconnectivity of institutional resources should be focused toward the following audiences: • Citizens • Government agencies • Non‐profits and environmental organizations • Business and industry • Educational entities Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 37
Technology: Education/Outreach Facilitator: Margaret Lansing, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab Recorder: Shannon Glutting Participants: Brian Huberty, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Peter Knupfer, MATRIX/Center for Great Lakes Culture Lois Morrison, The Nature Conservancy Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Industries Education 1. Set up web‐cams on the Great Lakes and/or on ships that are controllable by students 2. Set up remote controlled sensors (doesn’t have to be web‐based) 3. Post ideas for field based activities 4. Data‐collection “kiosks” around the Circle Tour • Display virtual and/or interactive information • Set up GLIN‐endorsed heritage markers/kiosks at rest stops o Coordinate with state and provincial tourism boards 5. Create downloadable curriculum (in accordance with state standards) • Let teachers be able to assemble different database information into unique lesson plans (interactive lesson planning vs. static laid out plans) o Could be viewed as a lesson “mosaic” • Partner with historical society, Center for Great Lakes Culture • Find creative ways to solicit information from audience (kiosks, online entries by outside sources) 6. Partner with universities to participate in and post online classes relating to Great Lakes topics 7. Create a “show us your vacation pictures!” image archive • Identify a topic for the submissions; could have a topic of the month or year 8. Wireless options: • FCC controlling factor • Searching tool, real‐time information • Tourism information could be downloadable to PDA’s, etc. • Live links to boats, partner with shipping Page 38
Great Lakes Information Network Outreach 1. Create a GLIN promotional campaign which could include radio spots, magazine ads, internet ads and “sponsored links” (ex: Google) • Make GLIN partners have more responsibility for publicizing GLIN • Create a publicity campaign for GLIN’s 10‐year anniversary o Could include press releases, new logo, showing up at other conferences/conventions to advertise GLIN 2. Sponsor a GLIN speaker series which could be broadcasted online with streaming video and transcripts • Possibly include a real‐time chat option 3. Sponsor town hall meetings, recorded and archived on GLIN • Web conference 4. Build networks for interest groups and advertise them on GLIN‐Announce • Have internal advisory board that approves networks before starting • Problem to address: policy and disclaimer to avoid advocacy on GLIN’s part 5. Advertise interest groups and GLIN by face to face promotion at conferences and meetings of other organizations 6. Partner with newspapers to be able to search archives • No dead links on news, they would be a permanent resource • Allow interest groups to post comments on articles and opinions to create new content where GLIN can still be neutral 7. Combine Sustainable Lakes conference with the GLIN conference to ensure a larger audience and more exposure 8. Get more involved with GIS and cultural and heritage information (shipwrecks, lighthouses) Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 39
Technology: Mobility Facilitator: Kurt Kowalski, USGS Great Lakes Science Center Recorder: Jon MacDonagh‐Dumler, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission Scudder Mackey, S.D. Mackey & Associates Jim Nicholas, U.S. Geological Survey Jill Ryan, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Hunt Williams, Merit Network Objective: Promote GLIN “beyond the desktop” Actions: • Anticipate reformatting GLIN material to wireless receivers • Focus attention on critical business processes that would provide information to mobile recipients • Push GLIN as the primary point of information for mobile multifunction devices • The Great Lakes Commission should be running a wireless environment Summary of discussion points: In the context of the strategic planning process, GLIN must evaluate what (if any) role it hopes to have in the delivery of data and information to mobile devices such as cellular phones and PDAs. The technology already exists and, as wireless devices proliferate, there will be growing demand and use for GLIN’s resources to be accessible “beyond the desktop.” Two prominent scenarios concern the possibility of real‐time access to Great Lakes Observing System information (presuming that GLIN becomes a source or conduit for such information) and field access to GIS information. Two sides to the issue: should GLIN be reformatting (and helping other agencies reformat) content? Or, should we be developing specific products that are useful to mobile users (expertise vs. actual products)? - Reformatting content: Much of current GLIN content is made up of resources that we simply point to, so reformatting becomes largely an exercise in pressuring other agencies and organizations to reformat their content. A possible direction: GLIN should develop itself as the regional expert in making web information compatible for mobile devices (using XML/CSS device detection methods) and helping to facilitate inter‐agency product development for mobile devices. (Similar to our plan to provide a universal web‐mapping interface for regional GIS data.) Page 40
Great Lakes Information Network - Developing more GLIN‐based products: Move GLIN further in the direction of developing and managing products under the GLIN brand. Offer more knowledge and content instead of being a conduit to content on other sites. Discussion of issues/concerns: - Reformatting or mobile interface development vs. specific products? - Integration of data standards (“infrastructure role to support mobile users across heterogeneous data resources”) - Making agencies get along (is that more historically the Great Lakes Commission role?) - Agreements and funding given to Great Lakes Commission (with focus on GLIN as a tool) or to GLIN (possibly spun off from Great Lakes Commission)? - Training and investment of time for GLIN staff to develop new skills and make conversion (cost?) - Use of university affiliations to keep up with latest developments in mobile technology (interns?) - Make Great Lakes Commission office an example of cutting edge by providing wireless Internet access in the office, for access by staff and visitors (cost, security?) - Going forward: need to see examples of information delivery on mobile devices in order to talk about adapting GLIN to the medium Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 41
Page 42
Great Lakes Information Network Sustainability: Public Facilitator: Jim Nicholas, U.S. Geological Survey Recorder: Christine Manninen, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Dave Hart, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Peter Knupfer, MATRIX/Center for Great Lakes Culture Dave Poulson, Michigan State University What publics use GLIN? A survey of some sort would be helpful to gauge this. As part of this survey, GLIN users could be asked about their willingness to pay for GLIN services or make an annual monetary donation. “My GLIN”—customizing GLIN for different user communities might be beneficial. “Ask GLIN” would be useful but a staff‐intensive feature. Ideas • To enhance GLIN sustainability, GLIN might develop content and then work with content aggregators and publishers to make it available via libraries, universities and other public institutions in the region and beyond • Leverage cost‐reduction packages for services from ISPs (i.e., Merit) • Strike deals with content providers (e.g., newspapers) to enhance access to their archived materials for GLIN users • Enhance GLIN partnerships with cultural and historical organizations • Create a GLIN image archive (pay to download) • Institute a nominal fee for Daily News services; customized news packages could also be provided to GLIN News sponsors (i.e., Council of Great Lakes Industries, Sierra Club, etc) Could we leverage support from the public to indirectly promote support from federal agencies, government to support GLIN? Charging for selected GLIN “premium” services: listserv hosting, daily news services, customized searches. We shouldn’t undersell ourselves and think that the public would not pay for what we offer. Public space on GLIN could be free but “member” space would include enhanced features. [Discussion note: Many were uncomfortable with GLIN adding a “members‐
only” space…sounds restrictive and counter to GLIN’s role up to now as a free, open information source). We could have varying sponsorship levels for GLIN conferences. SIM‐Basin (simulated Basin). Could we partner with a software company (preferably within the region) to create/market/sell such a “game” to the public? We should more closely examine our GLIN usage statistics to identify public demand for what GLIN provides. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 43
Sustainability: States/Provinces Facilitator: Matt Mercurio, Institute for the Application of Geospatial Technology Recorder: Stuart Eddy, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Mike Donahue, Great Lakes Commission Irvin Goldblatt, Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management Martha Waszak, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Funding will be necessary for many of the “next steps” discussed in breakouts that have taken place so far. What are current costs for GLIN support? 2 FTEs? Costs to Merit? A total of $150‐
200K? Or is it really more than that? Re‐examine GLIN’s institutional home. GLIN’s current resources need to be inventoried and the nature of its position within the Great Lakes Commission’s operations needs to be assessed. Without knowing more specifics about where GLIN is right now, it will be difficult to know how to move forward constructively. What measures will enhance state/provincial support of GLIN? (Types of outreach, services offered) In what ways can states and provinces support GLIN? • Dedicated funds from the states will be tough to come by, but still, is such funding possible of GLIN’s benefits can be articulated clearly enough? • What in‐kind support and sharing of resources would be of use? And how do we pursue it? Action item: MOAs with states and provinces that formalize status and contributions to GLIN, and the benefits of that affiliation. • Information/data access • Funding? o include Great Lakes Commission as partner in pursuit? o convert GLIN to separate, formal organization? • Proposal/project development interaction, pursuing funds for GLIN together with other entities that would benefit A big part of preparing for sustainability with respect to states and provinces is to articulate GLIN’s basic functions for those entities – get GLIN articulated into a “return on investment” statement that can be used to approach each state or agency in turn. GLIN also needs to formalize its advisory board and make sure it includes active state membership. Make participation in advisory board meetings easier by holding them via webcast. Page 44
Great Lakes Information Network Subscription services for special applications. Include in the MOA a pre‐screening process for joint projects, as in the Indiana “Business Partner Alliance” or the USACE “Level of Effort” concepts. A strategic plan and/or articulated concept of “What is GLIN” will be crucial to any general approach to the states and provinces. If the states and provinces are to be approached on a project‐by‐project basis instead, GLIN staff and board members will need focused, targeted themes. Consider state‐specific GLIN interfaces, either for each state/province individually and/or for more general state‐level issues in the region. Subscription fees could be charged for added bandwidth as applications demand more, or for added services. (No specific examples came to mind, but it is an option that could be considered within specific audience categories.) Key Points as presented to plenary group: 1. Well‐defined strategic plan 2. MOA with every state and province 3. Partnerships with state agencies 4. Formalize state/provincial membership on advisory board 5. Appropriate commercial revenue stream and exposure channels a. Advertising b. Subscription service Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 45
Sustainability: Federal Agencies Facilitator: Recorder: Participants: Pranas Pranckevicius, U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission Jennifer Day, International Joint Commission Kurt Kowalski, USGS Great Lakes Science Center Margaret Lansing, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory Scott Painter, Environment Canada Objective: Encourage formal support of the GLIN as a regional information clearinghouse and interagency connection portal by all U.S. and Canadian federal agencies. Actions: 1. Develop documentation of partnership roles and responsibilities. 2. Focus contributions on in‐kind services, whenever possible. 3. Develop partnering sessions to facilitate open discussions on implementation approaches. 4. Conduct periodic telephonic communications; take advantage of web conferencing tools provided by partners. 5. Promote the value of GLIN to each partner. 6. Provide multiple partner search capabilities, running on each partner’s web engines, which agencies could fund as a provided service. 7. Organize technical workshops ,which agencies could financially support. Summary of discussion points: The GLIN Advisory Board needs to clarify partnership roles and responsibilities. GLIN partners need to understand their obligation for making the collaborative viable. Above all, it needs to be understood that each partner should be a contributor. The GLIN management team needs to recognize that in‐kind services in lieu of direct funding support may be key to enhancing the overall sustainability of the collaborative. For example, federal agencies may find it easier to temporarily supply office or meeting space, computer and networking equipment, selected product development, conference Internet connections, etc., rather than money. Interagency development of system modeling tools running on GLIN could be a major benefit, particularly for helping users to visualize complex relationships and processes. The GLIN team needs to take advantage of existing web conferencing tools that many federal agencies have at their disposal. In particular, USEPA‐GLNPO, the U.S. F&WS and the USACE have a variety of resources that could be used to facilitate discussions and lower meeting costs. Page 46
Great Lakes Information Network The GLIN staff does not engage federal agencies as often as they should to discuss prospective partnership opportunities. Sometimes this is an easy endeavor, sometimes it is more difficult. All federal agencies in the region would benefit from a GLIN multi‐server search service. This value‐added product of GLIN could provide simultaneous searching of agency information resources, which would enhance the value that each agency provides to the region. Federal agencies could pay for the development and implementation of this multi‐server search capability. Selected technical training sessions should be organized by the GLIN staff. These training sessions could be a revenue stream for GLIN and would facilitate interoperability between federal agencies across the region. Some suggested topics include search engine optimization, development of web services, and application of web conferencing tools. Delivery of value‐added data products could also be a revenue stream for GLIN. This could include enhanced geographic products, such as GIS data themes, climatic and hydrologic datasets, integrated biologic information, etc. Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 47
Sustainability: NGOs/Academia Facilitator: Recorder: Participants: Jill Ryan, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Shannon Glutting, Great Lakes Commission Elizabeth LaPorte, Michigan Sea Grant Lois Morrison, The Nature Conservancy Stephen Wittman, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Ideas to explore 1. Fee‐based services • Should keep most widely used GLIN services free, but charge for others that are more expensive / time intensive to maintain Free Services $$ Services Daily news GIS data Subscription or per‐use charge GLIN‐Announce services (ex: for media) for high‐res Low‐res image gallery images, digital video and audio Broadcast of monthly web conferences Create and sell an image CD • Could have photo contest to collect images Public health resources (ex: BeachCast) Develop an e‐commerce part of GLIN to help sustain the rest of the network • Safety and emergency • Specialized/customized information mobility data Educational material on environmental awareness 2. Redefine GLIN partnership • Have different tiers of partnerships involving multiple ranges of groups (ex: corporations, educators, individuals, etc.) • Make it a “cool” thing to be a part of so people will want to participate, which will take some publicizing • Level of involvement/funding determines level of partnership/benefits 3. Circle Tour advertising • GLIN would be a virtual “yellow pages” that businesses could pay to be featured in • Get funding and/or partner with the Great Lakes basin state and provincial departments of tourism Page 48
Great Lakes Information Network 4. Search out philanthropists • Why not Bill Gates? • Search out sponsors based on specific topics (ex: GIS, education) 5. Consider GLIN’s spin‐off from the Great Lakes Commission • Research the pros and cons (ex: being able to do own fundraising vs. loss of major project for Great Lakes Commission) • Work with university business schools to take on GLIN business plan and market analysis as a class project o Could work with universities from around the Great Lakes basin o Could section off projects: marketing plan / business plan / survey / web analysis / recreation / GIS • Look into “loaned executives” to help with making the decision o Corporate executives, marketing specialists, public relation professionals from non environmental organizations 6. Ask for building in support from NGO funding requests that use GLIN promotion as a factor for obtaining grants/funding 7. Keep employment costs down by creating internships (paid or for credit / work study) for college students • Bring in aspiring journalists, IT students, School of Natural Resources (SNRE) students, designers 8. Look to larger government organizations (ex: NSF) for funding a basinwide program to link Merit, Great Lakes basin universities and GLIN • Make GLIN a basinwide GIS backbone • Look to state governments for political and congressional support 9. Look at Great Lakes Restoration Plan and build in a focus on GLIN topics such as GIS technology and land use to help support GLIN 10. Re‐evaluate governance of GLIN • Create formal board of directors and management structure Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 49
Sustainability: Commercial Interests Facilitator: Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Industries Recorder: Jon MacDonagh‐Dumler, Great Lakes Commission Participants: Brian Huberty, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Scudder Mackey, S.D. Mackey & Associates Paul Roszkowski, U.S. Coast Guard Nicholas Scipione, Wingspread Fellow Hunt Williams, Merit Network Questions: • What is “commercial” or who are the “commercial interests”? • What is the value that GLIN brings to this sector? • How can GLIN help this sector? • Should “Fee for Service” activities be a strategic focus over the next 5‐10 years? • How would grants and contributions flow through the Great Lakes Commission to GLIN? Observations: • “Fee for Service” activities, especially value‐added content provided by GLIN for “Commercial Interests” will likely be perceived as pandering • GLIN may offer value‐added services, such as web content, to federal agencies because they are interested in promoting their agencies and programs to the public • “Friends of the Great Lakes” may provide a means to solicit targeted donations through the Great Lakes Commission • GLIN is perceived to have a strong environmental focus which could, at times, be at cross purposes to “Commercial Interests,” such as snowmobiling • “Commercial Interests” include: o Community foundations o Corporate foundations o Manufacturing o Paper mills o Annex 2001 interests o Shipping o Water municipalities/sewage o Industry o Environmental consulting/services o Agriculture o Utilities o Mining o Financial services o Fortune 1000 companies headquartered in the basin Page 50
Great Lakes Information Network Recommendations: • GLIN should not focus on “Fee for Service” activities for “Commercial Interests” • GLIN must have representatives of “Commercial Interests” on the Advisory Board if they are to be a sustainable source of support; they must be a core partner • Develop a GLIN Partnership list by identifying “bell cow” individuals (leaders) in each “Commercial Interests” sector above and within each geographic region relevant to that sector • Identify and communicate with current and future user groups/stakeholders/partners to determine: o Who they are o Why they use GLIN o Why they might come to GLIN for information and/or service o Where they are located • Grant and funding development for GLIN should consider two parallel strategies: o Establish a rationale for a target level of funding support from “Commercial Interests,” such as 30 percent, to cover the cost of recurring/ongoing operations o Solicit support for recurring/ongoing operations through “Partnership Fees” analogous to the dues currently paid by states to the Great Lakes Commission. For example, identify representatives from each sector of “Commercial Interests” in the eight states and two provinces and seek $25,000 from each o In parallel, new initiatives and start‐up projects should be funded by grants from particular sectors, such as foundations, which have an interest in the activity Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 51
Page 52
Great Lakes Information Network Keynote Presentation Speaker: Huntington Williams, III – President, Merit Network, Inc. Delivered: Aug. 21, 2003 at Wingspread; Racine, Wis. I was given the invitation to look forward 10 or 20 years and speak in a way that would be futuristic, but also challenging on the topic of what the trends are in information technology—
specifically in networking that might be important for GLIN and all of its affiliated organizations to be aware of, or to be thinking of as a foundation for what might be possible in going forward. My colleague in the morning workshop talked about “reach back” technologies, so I’m going to borrow from that a little bit. In order to be able to have any kind of sense of what’s possible or likely in the next 10 or 20 years, it’s helpful to take a look back at what has actually happened in the last 10 or 20, or even 30 years. Because when you think about what’s happened, it is really quite extraordinary. One of my favorite anecdotes when I think about this: I grew up in a North Carolina in a town called Charlotte. In the summertime, when it was hot and I was sitting up at night wondering what the weather was going to be the next day, I would tune into the 11 pm weather, and my ambition at the age of 16 or 17 years old was to be a weatherman. Because I thought the coolest thing that one could do would be to predict the weather the next day and think of all the people who would be waiting with bated breath on every word that you might say. And there was a sort of hip weatherman in Charlotte, Mike Mckay, who did the 11 pm weather and the key moment in the weather report was the moment where he would draw with the magic marker the line, the arc of the cold front that was somewhere north of NC and that you knew was going to stall out somewhere over southwestern Virginia. But what I found sort of intellectually challenging was the notion that he could, with one swoop of his felt tip pen, inscribe the actual line of the cold front. And I thought anybody who had the job of doing that had to have the coolest job. Needless to say, that was sort of the state of information technology. Information technology was, at that point, largely broadcasting in terms of public communications. And it was before everything that you see now see on the weather. Needless to say, my ambitions floundered on the physics that were required to do advanced work in meteorology. Physics required a lot of high level math and I had bad math teachers in high school, and so I went into a very different track. Now, I just went to the computer that’s in the corridor—and I probable shouldn’t tell you because now it will be fully occupied—but between Rooms 7 and 9, there’s a little niche where you can get onto the internet and learn that the cold front is in fact about 35 miles northwest of us right now. And it’s all tracked with isobars and so on and so forth. I run an organization called Merit. I’ve been there only about two years. About the time I was a teenager in NC watching the 11 pm weather, the state of Michigan did something kind of interesting. They actually put $400,000 aside as a challenge grant to timeshare the mainframe computers at the three main universities in the state: Wayne State, Michigan State and the Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 53
University of Michigan. They sort of said, “we want you to spend this money on computer aided instruction.” There were two missions: computer aided instruction, and networking. And the National Science Foundation sort of said, “Well, this networking problem isn’t solved yet and you’ve got some good people at the University of Michigan in the networking area. We’ll match the challenge grant, but only if you do it for computer timesharing on these mainframes.” And that gave birth to an organization Merit, which stands for Michigan Education Research Information Triad. And the triad was these three universities. It’s a happy acronym, particularly for computer aided instruction, because it sort of implies equal access to learning resources and meritocracy; and the notion that that, in our true democratic sense, if you provided open access to quality information and learning resources to everybody, then the people who can achieve will achieve. At the time it sounded like a Chinese gang, you know, Triad. The only reason that there actually was the ability to timeshare these mainframes was because about five years earlier, a really smart computer scientist named Bernie Geller at the University of Michigan had co‐authored a paper that pointed out that it was possible to install something called virtual memory in IBM mainframes, and then went and lobbied IBM to actually put virtual memory into these machines that the three universities bought. And it was the virtual memory (and I’m not an engineer so I’m sort of speaking on other people’s authorities here) that made it then possible to try to think about what technologies would enable people to do what was then brand new: which was networking. In fact, IBM said, “Why would he be so crazy as to put virtual memory in these machines?” And Bernie Geller said, “Well, you gotta do it.” And that then led to the two sort of contemporaneous packet switching data networking initiatives in that same time period. One was ARPANET, which was the Dept. of Defense initiative that Vinton Cerf was the intellectual leader of; and the other was Merit, which my predecessor, a man named Eric Aupperle, who’s completely unsung in the history of the internet, was the leader of. About three years later, they actually successfully created the first internetworking capability between these three institutions. And they used a set of protocols that were pre‐internet. This is sort of prehistory of the internet. From 1972 until 1990, they continued to use these separate kind of protocols and by then Vince served in the ARPANET project, had done some things in the military arena that were interesting enough so that the folks at the National Science Foundation, when they were faced with exactly the same opportunity or challenge that Michigan had had 15 years earlier, said let’s do the NSFNET—which was the first national backbone for research and education networking using internet protocols. Merit had fortunately begun to support what’s called PCPIP two years earlier, so we were kind of in a good position. I’m going to be saying some things in this brief talk that are meant to be emblematic of ways in which organizations can succeed and do big things. And I wasn’t involved in any of this, so it’s not like I’m trying to toot my own horn; this is just how Merit did interesting things. What they did was to partner with big organizations. They partnered with IBM and they partnered with MCI, and it was when economic times were good and Blanchard was the governor in Michigan and he had a good staffer, and they said hey if we can get this NSFNET contract in Michigan, it Page 54
Great Lakes Information Network will put Michigan in the pole position in networking nationally, because it will be running the national backbone. So the state of Michigan committed $5 million over a five year period. And that combination of partners, together with the fact that Merit had done fifteen years of networking prior to that, was enough of a value proposition for it to win the contract to re‐
engineer and then run the NSFNET. It wasn’t IBM mainframes at that point that they were connecting, it was the eight or nine supercomputer centers that the NSF was funding around the country, and there was I believe a 9600 baud connection between them. So you had these massive pieces of hardware, whether it was IBM mainframes or supercomputers in Pittsburgh and San Diego that people weren’t able to take full advantage of, because networking technology wasn’t robust and mature the way it is today, relatively speaking. So between 1987‐1995, Merit ran this network and of course during that period there were some additional protocols developed by a Tim Berners‐Lee at CERN in Switzerland, a high energy physics community. High energy physicists are a really interesting breed of networking and data because they basically recreate nature in their experimental area. And nature is out there producing infinite amounts of data, when you think about it, and so they produced massive amounts of data and they had to transmit them to their colleagues around the world. And the protocol called MOSAIC, which what made it possible for you guys to migrate from Gopher to the web in ’94, was written by Tim Berners‐Lee and so the from the networking protocols to the graphical user interface there was this explosion that occurred and it was such a big explosion that, of course, the National Science Foundation, the federal government, said, “Now its time for the private sector to run with this and we don’t need a National Science Foundation research and education backbone anymore,” and thus ended the national role for Merit. In the meantime, we continued to connect all of the research and education institutions in Michigan and bring access to K‐12 schools and community colleges and the Great Lakes Commission and GLIN, and so now we run what’s called a regional network and we’re the on ramp, if you will, to the successor to Merit, which is Internet II at the national level. So that is Merit’s little history and I give it to you for two reasons: 1) just to indicate how there are three different chapters in this. One was the initial packet switching and timesharing; the next was the IP protocol; the third was the protocol for the graphical user interface. But all these three put together had transformed the way we think about networking and the way we think about communications and information, because fundamentally it’s meant that we now live in an environment where the telephone and the television and the computer are all one device. I mean they are not there yet, because there are mature industries associated with all of them and they are all trying to fight it. The new frontier is “smart phones,” because that is where all these things are probably going to converge. It is a very interest stock tip when you look at the market capitalization of Nokia, which is the software driven smart phone company, and look at the market capitalization of Microsoft; and you realize they are basically in the same market. The second reason is just to say that over a 20‐30 year period, this kind of transformation can occur. And its not likely to occur in networking the way it has occurred in the past. Everything that I’ve just said now is just simply to put markers down as to how much things can change. Not Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 55
to say that the same type of stuff is going to happen, because what I’m going to talk about in a minute is how the frontier in networking has really changed. It’s moving to what I’ll call “sensor networks,” which is wireless activities and which is nanotechnology. It involves (I’m going to steal my own thunder here) basically allowing earth scientists—people who are generating data out of nature instead of creating controlled experimental environments—that there are massive amounts of data coming out of the environment in ways that is going to have to somehow get processed and sampled and turned into knowledge. And that’s where I think the opportunity is, in the next 10 or 20 years, for GLIN in the information technology and networking arena. The funding for that right now, incidentally, isn’t in anything like NOAA or the U.S. Geological Survey. The funding for that right now is exactly where it was for ARPANET in 1969, it’s in Department of Defense and in the National Security Agency. Because the technologies that are now at the ARPA stage—what are called “MOTES” —are being developed specifically to generate battlefield intelligence. But as with NASA, there are going to be all sorts of crossovers as the technologies begin to develop. I came into Merit two years ago, succeeding the guy who’d already climbed Mt. Everest. How do you succeed somebody like Eric Aupperle, who’s the Vinton Cerf in networking in Michigan that nobody really knows because he’s such a quiet guy. You don’t do it by addressing the same problem that Eric Aupperle addressed, you have to redefine the problem. And to a certain extent, Merit has a major challenge now, which is my challenge. And it is sort of a challenge that’s similar to what GLIN’s challenge is: okay, so we were present at the creation, and Merit was present at the creation of the internet (basically it was the NSFNET which was the first large scale implementation of internet technologies at a national level anywhere). GLIN was present. I didn’t know, when I came to this event, that GLIN was founded before the web. If you were present before the web, you were present at the creation, and you had the incredible pleasure of porting your non‐graphical data from a gopher interface over to a graphical interface. And I remember the early days of MOSAIC 1.0 when it didn’t support forms, for example. And there was nothing different in terms of your ability to represent anything visually. You couldn’t do anything more than the menu type of navigation that gopher permitted, but you could do it with colors; and so when you went out and gave demos, people actually thought it was important, whereas with gopher didn’t look important at all unless somebody was already interested in it. So Merit now faces, in a very different vein, the challenge that GLIN faces, which we’ve been assembled here to do: which is to envision “What’s the next challenge?” What I’ve heard today so far is that the challenge isn’t information and it isn’t data, it’s knowledge. That much bigger....that’s a sort of second order. You know there are lots of ramifications of conceptually going to that step. What I did when I came to Merit was to say: maybe networking isn’t where the opportunity is. And I’m not an engineer, so I didn’t really know networking. I thought networking was pretty stable at Merit and so I pulled from the Computer‐Aided Instruction part of the original 1966 mission statement, and said, “Well, maybe the opportunity is to use the regional network as a test bed to prove or disprove, in a quantified manner, the hypothesis that network computers help people learn more effectively.” Because you think about all the money going into networking in Page 56
Great Lakes Information Network K‐12 education and no one has actually shown that it correlates to improve test scores, or improve career achievement or anything like that as compared to, say, the one‐room schoolhouse. I quickly came to realize that networking is an evolving sort of frontier. and that while it was nice to focus on that part of the original mission statement, there was this not just opportunity, but necessity, to work in networking still. And so a lot of my last 12‐to‐18 months has been of being a quick study in networking technologies and trends, and I want to share a few of them with you now as they relate not just to Merit but to GLIN. I want to point out three trends really quickly. The one I’ve sort of already alluded to is that in today’s environment, the personal computer is more powerful than the supercomputers of 1985 and essentially more powerful than the mainframes of 1969; and the personal computers are being superseded by laptops, and the laptops are being superseded by PDAs, and the PDAs are being superseded by smart phones. And we have this miniaturization phenomenon that will end up with “Dick Tracy calling Go‐Go Gomez, Dick Tracy calling Go‐Go Gomez. Come in.” Remember the Saturday morning cartoon? And I’m not sure how that relates to GLIN but I want to point that out as a trend. Another trend is what I’ll call optical networking and customer‐owned fiber. What I discovered, when I came to Merit, is that this historical pattern of providing connectivity to the research and education community using what are called leased circuits—typically from the telephone company—was a non‐viable business proposition. If you want to do really massive data or interactive video or peer‐to‐peer transmissions but for DVDs, not for music (which is what 19‐
year‐old students at all our member universities want to do): if you want to uncouple or decouple bandwidth at cost, you have to own the network. And so the trend that I want to allude to now is, and it is happening now because of economic things going on nationally, there is this massive overbuilding of national truck lines and Quest and Touch America and Williams and McCloud are all part of the telecommunications bust. There is a lot of fiber out there that is really inexpensive. And Merit is in the process now—and all of the other research and education networks around the country are in the process—of acquiring backbone fiber so that we don’t pass on costs from SBC and Ameritech and all of these telecom providers to GLIN or to the Commission or much more importantly, to the University of Michigan or Michigan State or the U.S. Geological Survey. What that is going to mean is that we’re going to have pipes that will carry... if it was 9600 baud at the beginning of the NSF net and T1 and then T3, it is going to be 10 gigabytes and 40 gigabytes of capacity times 96 lambdas on a single strand of fiber. A lambda is a 10 gigabyte. So there is going to be massive capacity in what I call the backbone. The reason that hasn’t happened out there in the for‐profit sector is because there is this great, big, clogged bottleneck in what’s called last‐mile or first‐mile. We have hit the deflection point now where the commercial providers have incentive to bring that capacity down to the hump. They are beginning to do that now, DSL and cable modems are relatively thin straws compared to what I’m talking about. Anybody who is knowledgeable about networking will tell you that life begins at 100 megabytes. 100 megabytes is the point at which you can truly have a high definition television quality interactive stream coming out of whatever devise you are using. So the challenge is going to be, other than getting fiber down to every device: How do you do it? Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 57
Everything involved is just a financial issue now. The technology is pretty worked out. In fact, there is a surfeit of technology to get 40 gigabytes out of a strand of fiber, and there is not enough demand. There are really great companies out there right now that have fantastic technology and they have no revenue because nobody’s buying their equipment because nobody needs 40 gigabytes. The only people that do are universities, and the reason the universities do is because they have already done the job of getting wires into all of the dormitories and offices and research labs of their community of the future, which is the 30,000 students who reside in the residence halls of Michigan State University, for example. So Merit is an organization that’s in this interesting position of having to serve the community of the future, which is why we are on the forefront of customer‐owned fiber. All of your organizations—if you are close at all to a backbone node in the future—you are going to want to make the investment to get fiber between your offices and some slice point or backbone node into these kinds of networks because it will mean you are at the edge. But then there is the issue of what do you do for people who are not in an institution? What do you do for the Dick Tracy watch, or more interestingly, what do you do for the nanotechnology equivalent of the environmental monitoring buoy in Lake St. Clair, of which there are 10,000? All of which are transmitting real‐time data. I mean, this is the natural equivalent of the controlled high energy physics experiment at CERN Switzerland. That’s the frontier networking where the protocols haven’t been developed. It’s not even R & D, the basic science is underway right now. I’m not sure what’s going on in the Great Lakes states other than Michigan, because I don’t track what’s going in at the University of Chicago in this area. Just to give you a flavor of what’s going on, at the University of Michigan they’ve got something called the WIMS ERC Center, funded by the NSF. They have two focus areas for truly tiny devices. The sort of devices that, implanted in your skin, would monitor your metabolic rates for hypertension or for diabetes, and which would transmit a wireless signal in a decision support system to your spouse, your primary care giver, your specialist.... This is happening. Or another one I just mentioned, MOTES, or a buoy. The two focus areas of this WIMS ERC Center at the University of Michigan are cochlear implants, which is like a local area network between your ear and your brain, if can you imagine that; and environmental monitoring. I haven’t had time yet to talk to the folks there to find out what they’re doing, but I’ve identified for Merit that this is sort of like the next Mt. Everest in the networking arena. And I predict that for an organization like GLIN, as these technologies begin to come online and can transition out of the priority of the secret DOD and NSA type areas of health care, where they are explored initially, or environmental monitoring outside the military background... this will be a whole new set of data that you’ll have to figure out how to convert into knowledge. I didn’t know very much about GLIN, but I love obviously the weather, and I love to swim, and I just went though the Upper Peninsula and had been told that Lake Superior was so cold that you should just use it to chill your beer. And somehow that didn’t jive with global warming and my notions of what global warming means. I believe Lake Superior will become the Caribbean of Page 58
Great Lakes Information Network North America. And I’m new to Michigan, so I thought I would do a scouting expedition. So I put my fly‐fishing rod in the back and told my wife and kids that I was going to have to drive back from Minnesota via the U.P. I stopped off at three different spots along the U.P. and went swimming and in two of them, the water was at least 75 degrees, and not just at the surface. I could go up to here and I could plunge in like a dolphin and not want to get out right away. At one other [spot], it was actually really cold out on the Keweenaw Peninsula, really cold. I don’t think that having MOTES like environmental sensors that would monitor the coastline and provide real‐time data like the Weather Channel does out of Doppler Radar is that important. It’s nice, but there is a big disconnect between technology and knowledge, and that the fact that things are available doesn’t necessarily mean that they are important. I don’t know what the impact or the role for GLIN is, but given everything that I’ve said, I do know that in the next 10‐20 years, in a very different way than I’ve described, we’re going to see changes that are just as dramatic as we’ve seen over the last 15‐20 years. It’s going to be a very exciting period. The great news for this organization is that you’ve already been there and done that, so you are kind of aerobically fit. It’s not like you’re gearing up to do this for the first time, and that means that you are very well positioned. Q. You mentioned the evolution of Merit and how you were really on the very forefront, were the backbone provider. And then it sounded like organizationally, it has become something less but at the same time a regional part of a bigger thing it helped create. A. The moment the government got out of funding national backbones is the moment when our national role ended. Two years later, Internet II was created to do what had been done before. The Internet II hasn’t had anything like the impact that the NSFNET had. What I want to point out is that in what GLIN does, and certainly in what Merit does as technology changes, things go into the commodities base. And if you stay in the commodities base, you have to sort of move along a band of where a tech transfer space is between research and development, and bringing things out to the general public. And I think at the level of information or knowledge about the Great Lakes, that’s where GLIN needs to project itself. Otherwise, its more like a portal that is a convenient assembly place for stuff that other people are providing. For Merit that means that we have to stay completely tied to what it is the research scientists at the big research universities in Michigan need, because it’s there that the basic research is occurring that may or may not get transferred out into the space. So our role is to actually stay in touch with everybody who’s doing networking research, however that is defined, at those three institutions and be opportunistic about partnering with whomever. Right now, in the wireless broadband area our prospective partner is a company that isn’t IBM or MCI, but you would know its name if I told it to you. And figure out a way where we use this built‐in constituency that’s about 10 years ahead of the rest of the world to do something that’s unique and ahead of the rest of the world. For GLIN the analogy is a little bit different. The analogy is: you have to be ahead of the knowledge flow in order to be able to inform the folks at the Commission so that the policymakers actually draw on your data and knowledge instead of somebody else’s. It’s an Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 59
imperfect analogy. To the extent that there are periods of time when the new trend in technology isn’t clear, an organization goes into a fallow period where you keep going but you don’t necessary know exactly which mountain you are going to climb next. Merit has been in that period for about two or three years. It’s now got its sight on two specific ranges. My sense is that this meeting is where GLIN is identifying its own. Q. Did you say that Michigan State has 35,000 wireless ports? A. No. Michigan State has either the largest or second largest residence hall system in the country. Q. The students aren’t connecting with fiber on their computers. A. They are connecting with—I’m not sure whether its fiber—but not just Michigan State, all the universities, because US News and World Report comes out with the most wired campuses. Because universities are these unique institutions where you get a high concentration of people largely in one confined space. They have made the investments in their campus networks. In terms of bandwidth, Michigan State consumes more bandwidth than the Big Three motor companies combined, by a factor of about ten. Q. How many students are using wireless? A. Wireless would be a place right now where they would use it if they wanted mobility for their device within their wired environment. The challenge is to move wireless from a LAN environment, which is what I just described, into a WAN environment, if you think about the students who live off‐campus. When we give about 10 megabytes of bandwidth to every device on the MSU campus, they don’t all use it simultaneously. But the ones off‐campus, if they have DSL, they are getting at best 1/20th of that. The kinds of technologies at our basic service level that we are exploring are things that provide a radius of 10 or 15 miles around a point of presence where people can connect wirelessly—without having to go through wires at all. What I’m suggesting is that there are some technologies coming out that aren’t connected to basic service levels, but connected to environmental research where the protocols are not developed yet, and the operating systems for the sensors devises aren’t yet developed. This is still very preliminary, where it’s going to be transmitted; and it may be transmitted from a thousand of them simultaneously. Right now I’ll bet that a lot of the real‐time data coming off the Great Lakes is coming not from buoys, but from satellites. I asked somebody who I was speaking to recently about where the water temperature levels for the lakes were coming from, and it’s from satellite readings. Incredibly valuable technology, but there is a whole range of data they don’t get you to. I’m not an environmental engineer or environmental research scientist, so I don’t actually know what problems these devices would address. What I do know is that the problems the scientist comes up with for them to address is going to be: What drives how the device is Page 60
Great Lakes Information Network engineered? Because the operating systems are going to be application‐specific as opposed to generic. Right now we are in this sort of fermentation period where the technologies, particularly the nanotechnologies, are becoming mature enough for the research scientist. It’s sort of like what someone said about Frank Lloyd Wright: he did the design, but it was 20 years before the building materials were there to support it. In the research space the scientist may set a problem, but it’s only when the tools are there to carry it out that he or she can actually do it. That’s what occurring right now. What I believe it’s going to mean is that in the next 10‐15 years, there’s going to be a whole new level of complex data coming in to organizations that operate in the space of GLIN that’s going to be the equivalent of the massive amounts of data out of CERN that led Tim Berners‐Lee to develop protocols that led to MOSAIC.
Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004 Page 61
Appendices
Program Envisioning the Future of the Great Lakes Information Network Aug. 20‐22, 2003 Wingspread Conference Center – Racine, Wisconsin Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Hospitality Wingspread Living Room/ Guest House Welcome to Wingspread Steven T. Branca Program Officer The Johnson Foundation Dinner Adjournment Evening Hospitality Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:00 a.m. Breakfast is available from 6:30 to 8:45 a.m. in the Living Room of the Guest House. Plenary Session Our Legacy and Our Future Michael J. Donahue President and Chief Executive Officer Great Lakes Commission Living Room/ The House 9:20 a.m. Defining Objectives Christine Manninen Program Manager Communications and Internet Technology Great Lakes Commission Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004
Page 65
Thursday, August 21, 1003 (continued) 1) 5‐year strategic plan for GLIN 2) Nurturing collaborative relationships and information partnerships between the states and provinces and GLIN 3) Initialize planning for GLIN 10‐year anniversary conference in mid‐2004 9:45 a.m. Observations/Inspirations Facilitator: Kurt Kowalski Geographer, USGS Great Lakes Science Center Chair, GLIN Advisory Board 10:15 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. Session One – Breakout Groups New Content for GLIN Group 1: Environment Facilitator: Scudder Mackey Group 2: Economy Facilitator: Peter Knupfer Group 3: Recreation Facilitator: Elizabeth LaPorte Group 4: Human Health Facilitator: Stephen Wittman Group 5: Research and Education Facilitator: Brian Huberty 12:00 noon Hospitality 12:15 p.m. Luncheon Page 66
Studio Board Room Lower Level A Lower Level B Mezzanine Wingspread Great Lakes Information Network Thursday, August 21, 1003 (continued) 1:15 p.m. Leisure 1:45 p.m. Plenary Session Keynote Address Huntington Williams, III President Merit Network, Inc. 2:15 p.m. Breakout Group Reports Facilitator: Kurt Kowalski 3:15 p.m. Break 3:30 p.m. Session Two – Breakout Groups Technology Group 1: Linkages With the Media Facilitator: Dave Poulson Group 2: Maps/GIS Facilitator: David Hart Group 3: Institutional Connectivity Facilitator: Scott Painter Group 4: Education/Outreach Facilitator: Margaret Lansing Group 5: Mobility Facilitator: Kurt Kowalski 5:00 p.m. Leisure 6:00 p.m. Hospitality 6:30 p.m. Dinner Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004
Living Room/ The House Studio Board Room Lower Level A Lower Level B Mezzanine Wingspread Page 67
Thursday, August 21, 1003 (continued) 7:30 p.m. Adjournment Evening Hospitality Living Room/ Guest House Friday, August 22, 2003 Breakfast is available from 6:30 to 8:45 a.m. in the Living Room of the Guest House. 9:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. Page 68
Plenary Session Breakout Group Reports Living Room/ The House Facilitator: Kurt Kowalski Break Session Three – Breakout Groups Sustainability Group 1: Public Facilitator: Jim Nicholas Studio Group 2: States/Provinces Facilitator: Matt Mercurio Board Room Group 3: Federal Agencies Facilitator: Pranas Pranckevicius Lower Level A Group 4: NGOs/Academia Facilitator: Jill Ryan Lower Level B Group 5: Commercial Interests Facilitator: Evelyn Strader Mezzanine Great Lakes Information Network Friday, August 22, 2003 (continued) 12:00 noon Hospitality 12:15 p.m. Luncheon 1:15 p.m. Leisure 2:00 p.m. Plenary Session Breakout Group Reports Facilitator: Kurt Kowalski 3:00 p.m. Key Outcomes and Next Actions Facilitator: Roger Gauthier Program Manager Data and Information Management Great Lakes Commission 4:00 p.m. Conference adjourns Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004
Wingspread Living Room/ The House Page 69
Participants Lori Cary‐Kothera Spatial Data Analyst Coastal Information Services NOAA Coastal Services Center Charleston, South Carolina E: lori.cary‐kothera@noaa.gov Jennifer Day Public Affairs Specialist International Joint Commission Windsor, Ontario E: dayj@windsor.ijc.org Michael J. Donahue President and Chief Executive Officer Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan E: mdonahue@glc.org Stuart Eddy Project Manager Data and Information Management Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan E: seddy@glc.org Roger Gauthier Program Manager Data and Information Management Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan E: gauthier@glc.org Shannon Glutting Program Specialist Communications and Internet Technology Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan E: glutting@glc.org Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004
Irvin Goldblatt Infrastructure Manager Dept. of Environmental Management State of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana E: igoldbla@dem.state.in.us David Hart Coastal GIS Specialist Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Madison, Wisconsin E: dahart@facstaff.wisc.edu Brian Huberty Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fort Snelling, Minnesota E: brian_huberty@fws.gov Peter Knupfer Associate Director MATRIX / Center for Great Lakes Culture Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan E: peter@mail.matrix.msu.edu Kurt Kowalski Geographer USGS Great Lakes Science Center Ann Arbor, Michigan E: kurt_kowalski@usgs.gov Margaret Lansing Ecologist NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab Ann Arbor, Michigan E: margaret.lansing@noaa.gov Page 71
Elizabeth LaPorte Communications Director Michigan Sea Grant College Program Ann Arbor, Michigan E: elzblap@umich.edu Jon MacDonagh‐Dumler Project Manager Regional Coordination and Policy Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan E: jonmacd@glc.org Scudder Mackey Environmental Consultant S.D. Mackey & Associates – Habitat Solutions Beach Park, Illinois E: scudder@sdmackey.com Christine Manninen Program Manager / GLIN Webmaster Communications and Internet Technology Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan E: manninen@glc.org Matt Mercurio Project Manager and GIT Specialist Inst. for the Application of Geospatial Technology at Cayuga Community College Auburn, New York E: mmercurio@iagt.org Lois Morrison Project Manager Great Lakes Programs The Nature Conservancy Chicago, Illinois E: lmorrison@tnc.org Jim Nicholas District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Lansing, Michigan E: jrnichol@usgs.gov Page 72
Scott Painter Manager Environment Canada – Ontario Region Burlington, Ontario E: scott.painter@ec.gc.ca Dave Poulson Assistant Director Knight Center for Environmental Journalism Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan E: poulson@msu.edu Pranas Pranckevicius Chief Data Integration Unit USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office Chicago, Illinois E: pranckevicius.pranas@epa.gov Mike Robertson Policy Analyst Land Information Ontario Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Peterborough, Ontario E: mike.robertson@mnr.gov.on.ca Paul Roszkowski Public Affairs, Western Great Lakes U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District Wilmette, Illinois E: proszkowski@stawilmetteharbor.uscg.mil Jill Ryan Director Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network & Fund Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Petoskey, Michigan E: jill@watershedcouncil.org Evelyn Strader Webmaster / Communications Specialist Council of Great Lakes Industries Rochester Hills, Michigan E: StraderCo@aol.com Great Lakes Information Network
Ken Theis Deputy Director Dept. of Information Technology State of Michigan Lansing, Michigan E: theisk2@michigan.gov Martha Waszak Communications Coordinator Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Lansing, Michigan E: waszakm@michigan.gov Huntington Williams, III President Merit Network, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan E: hw3@merit.edu Stephen Wittman Communications Coordinator Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute Madison, Wisconsin E: swittman@aqua.wisc.edu Wingspread Fellow Nicholas Scipione Benedictine University Elk Grove Village, Illinois E: nicholas_scipione@ben.edu The Johnson Foundation Staff Steven T. Branca Program Officer Sustainable Development and the Environment E: sbranca@johnsonfdn.org Wendy S. Butler Conference Support Specialist E: wbutler@johnsonfdn.org Wingspread – August 20‐22, 2004
Page 73
The Great Lakes Information Network:
Our Legacy and Our Future
Presented by
Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.
President / Chief Executive Officer
Great Lakes Commission
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Binational agency representing Great Lakes states and
provinces
Formed in mid-1950s via U.S. state and federal law;
provincial associate membership in 1999
Addresses resource management, environmental
protection, transportation and sustainable development
Functions are information sharing, policy research and
development, and advocacy
About
Communications and Internet Technology
To promote awareness and active participation in public
policy decisionmaking through the application of
communications techniques and technologies
Data and Information Management
To provide the data, information and technical support
processes needed for informed decisionmaking on a range
of public policy issues
Goals
Brief history of GLIN
• Internet-based communications network, online
since 1993 (on the World Wide Web since 1994)
• A gateway to the Great Lakes region: Topics
include environment, economy, education, history,
demographics, tourism and more
• Managed by the Great Lakes Commission; operated
as a cooperative by multiple partner agencies via a
regional advisory board
• Funded by the Ameritech Foundation and federal,
state/provincial agencies in the U.S. and Canada:
$1.5 million to date
Why is GLIN needed?
The Great Lakes
basin spans two
countries (8 states,
2 provinces); home
to 35 million people
The Great LakesSt. Lawrence River system
The lakes cover
94,000 square miles
and hold about one-fifth
of the world’s fresh
surface water supply
GLIN helps Great Lakes organizations
achieve two fundamental goals
A heightened profile for their web content
via a single, well-organized GLIN web site
Enhanced collaboration
using tools such as
E-mail listservs and
GIS mapping applications
GLIN Pilot Project Objectives
1991-93
• To continually identify and share, on a regional
basis, information and data including economic
and environmental research, legislative
developments and related items
• To facilitate awareness, joint planning and joint
implementation of programs and initiatives
between and among public and private sector
interests in the region
• To provide a wide-ranging electronic forum
for regional information exchange
GLIN Pilot Project Objectives
• To promote use of a consistent user-friendly
interface to the information resources of Great
Lakes organizations
• To locate, access and utilize information
resources on the Internet
• To use all the above for collaboration by special
working groups on critical issues
Personal perspectives on GLIN and the
evolution of Internet Technology
GLIN has successfully applied an
ecosystem approach
in its navigational design, recognizing the
integrated nature of the water, land, human and
economic resources of the Great Lakes basin
Diving in!
The GLIN model: Three
pathways to information
Geographic Map-based or text links to a locality, lake
basin, pollution hotspot, tourist destination or other
physical area
Subject Links to a wide range of topics important to the
sustainable development of the Great Lakes region,
including agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, education,
water levels, invasive species, pollution and more
Administrative Organizational links including agency
home pages, staff lists and newsletters
1994: GLIN hits the World Wide Web!
A 700% increase in usage from Jan 1994 – Sept 1999
In 2003…GLIN growth continues!
Monthly “hits”
hits” now average more than 5 million,
1.7 million unique visitors annually
Challenges ahead
Î Great Lakes maps and GIS
Adding a spatial data library to GLIN
Î Infrastructure development
Enhanced navigation and design, with multiple user interfaces
Î Financial sustainability
Core support for operations and maintenance of the network
Î Multi-server search capability
A customized search engine (mini-Yahoo) to search only the
GLIN indices and partners’ sites
Î Issue-oriented content and applications
Expanding topical sections on invasive species, restoration
planning, water consumption/diversion, among others
1993
2003
www.great-lakes.net
Defining Objectives
Wingspread
Aug. 20-22, 2003
Presented by
Christine Manninen
Program Manager
Communications & Internet Technology
Great Lakes Commission
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Five-year strategic plan for GLIN
• New content for GLIN
Environment, Economy, Recreation, Human
Health, Research and Education
• Technology
Linkages with the Media, Maps/GIS,
Institutional Connectivity,
Education/Outreach, Mobility
• Sustainability
Public, States/Provinces, Federal Agencies,
NGOs/Academia, Commercial Interests
Nurturing information partnerships
GLIN is a network of people and
organizations all with a common
interest: the Great Lakes
In the last decade, we’ve accomplished
major goals by establishing GLIN and enhancing our
communications via the Internet…but what’s next?
How we can advance GLIN to the next plateau and, in
the process, benefit and advance the missions of all
of our individual organizations?
Anniversary conference planning
• Third large, regional GLIN Conference planned for
fall 2004
• 300-400 attendees
anticipated from across
Great Lakes basin
• Workshops, technology
training seminars,
prominent speakers
• Previous GLIN events held in Ann Arbor (June 1993),
Lansing (April 1996) and Chicago (December 1998)
GLIN staff: past and present
Carol Ratza
Ron Emaus
Paula McIntyre
Laura Beer
Mandy Grewal
Derek Moy
Julie Wagemakers
Morgan Anderson
Sara Ashley
Jonathon Colman
1994-95
1996-97
1993
Current
Stuart Eddy
Roger Gauthier
Shannon Glutting
Chris Guenther
Kirk Haverkamp
Christine Manninen
Devra Polack
Kevin Yam
Hao Zhuang
1998-2000
2001-present
2003
www.great-lakes.net
What is GLIN????
Presented by
Roger Gauthier
Program Manager
Data and Information Management
Great Lakes Commission
Ann Arbor, Michigan
GLIN is a network of people and
organizations all with a common
interest: the Great Lakes
Wingspread GLIN Conference
GLIN staff: past and present
Past
Carol Ratza
Ron Emaus
Paula McIntyre
Laura Beer
Mandy Grewal
Derek Moy
Julie Wagemakers
Morgan Anderson
Sara Ashley
Jonathon Colman
Current
Stuart Eddy
Roger Gauthier
Shannon Glutting
Chris Guenther
Kirk Haverkamp
Christine Manninen
Devra Polack
Kevin Yam
Hao Zhuang
Wingspread GLIN Conference
Wingspread Vision
Foster GLIN Strategic Plan
Including:
Vision Statement
Objectives
Follow up with Periodic Work Plans
Including Specific Tasks
Wingspread GLIN Conference
Wingspread Vision
• New content for GLIN
Environment, Economy, Recreation, Human
Health, Research and Education
• Technology
Linkages with the Media, Maps/GIS,
Institutional Connectivity,
Education/Outreach, Mobility
• Sustainability
Public, States/Provinces, Federal Agencies,
NGOs/Academia, Commercial Interests
Wingspread GLIN Conference
Great Lakes Information Network
Wingspread Strategic Plan - 2004-2008
Significant Observations
™
™
™
The common themes of GLIN are “community”,
“collaboration”, and “providing services to others”
GLIN needs to provide searchable interface with
forms available on each partners sites; GLIN
promotes the sense of community
GLIN should host workshops and training sessions to
benefit the community.
Wingspread GLIN Conference
Great Lakes Information Network
Wingspread Strategic Plan - 2004-2008
Important Considerations
™
™
™
™
The Advisory Board should direct the work plan and
meet often.
We need to seek new GLIN partners.
GLIN needs to be as objective as possible. It
should showcase opposing points of view, based
upon scientifically valid information and relevant
policies.
GLIN should reexamine its governance and legal
standing to promote self-sufficiency and
sustainability.
Wingspread GLIN Conference
Great Lakes Information Network
Wingspread Strategic Plan - 2004-2008
What is a GLIN Partner?
™
A member of a community, a collaborative and a
provider of services to others
™
Act as apostles for funding opportunities
™
Participate regularly in partnering sessions
™
Provide input to regional calendar of events
™
Support may be financial or content-based
Wingspread GLIN Conference
Great Lakes Information Network
Stakeholders Conference 2004
™
To further engage stakeholders
™
To promote technology transfer
™
To refine vision, objectives and work tasks
™
To expand professional contacts
™
To promote further collaboration
Wingspread GLIN Conference
This Report Prepared By:
Great Lakes
Commission
des Grands Lacs
Eisenhower Corporate Park
2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791
www.glc.org
Printed November 2004