A.

Funding Commitments for FY2008 and FY2007

B.

FY2009 Draft Eligible Service List and NPRM

C.

Update on Fall 2008 Applicant Training

D.

Applicant HATS Program

E.

Invoicing Update

F.

Other

G.

General Questions Received by E-mail

1. Are enhancements to the ECertification of Form 472 BEARS planned for the near future? In checking under my SPIN # on a weekly basis I have found a BEAR waiting for certification since 03/07. That BEAR has been submitted on paper, invoiced and paid back in 06/07. Also there are pending certifications for former customers who used the wrong SPIN number on their Form 471, were advised of this situation and now who are waiting for me to certify a BEAR for FY2007 when they went to another service provider in 01/06. There doesn't seem to be any way to make comments on the BEARS or remove them from my SPIN. Can the site be enhanced to allow for contact from that site via email to the SLD to request removal and/or corrections? Thanks!
   
2. A school district plans on applying for funding for network equipment. This is a rather large district, over 50 sites and is undergoing construction/renovation projects at some sites. If funded for the priority two equipment, all of the equipment will be installed at the designated sites per the item 21 attachment and block four entities for at least one school year.
   
   However, because of the renovation project, some of the equipment will have to be pulled from the original site and warehoused for up to 12 months. The students from these sites will be moved to a temporary site and that school will effectively be "temporarily closed." After the construction is done at the original site, the equipment will go back to that original site.
    
   Is it permissible to transfer equipment to a "warehouse" site? Should the applicant file an transfer of equipment request with the SLD and indicate that the equipment will be warehoused temporarily until the construction at the original site is complete?
   
   
3. Concerning the proposal to list intranet web hosting as an ineligible feature in the draft Eligible Services List for Funding Year 2009:
   
   Thank you for recognizing that some constituents have had confusion about exactly what is and is not eligible as a web hosting service. Two questions:
   
   a. Is the proposed language for “intranet web hosting” intended to indicate ineligibility for any part of a web hosting service that calls for a user name and password or in some other way limits access to information to only some users of the Internet? Or should a different interpretation be made?
   
   b. Previously USAC has indicated that web hosting cost allocations would be based on a simple 50/50 or 33/33/33 formula, but this information was not posted to the USAC website and apparently was not implemented. For Funding Year 2009, how does USAC intend to administer this change in web hosting eligibility and any changes to existing vendor cost allocations?