Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 15 Mar 2011Attendees: CPA: Lauren Heine, Mark Rossi, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Shari

Franjevic, TURI/UML: Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Mark Buczek,

Alexander Brown, Greg Morose, Melissa Coffin HP: Diane Fisher, Helen Holder, Cory Robertson, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Shaw: Dennis McGavis Flextronics: Seb Nardecchia, Cliff Bast The WERCS: Tom Carter, Geoff Brooks, Frank Adams, Karen Lentz DSM: Frederic Petit, Luca Rosetto, Jan Arnauts Apple: Andy Baynes, Rob GuzzoAgenda: The focus/core of these meetings for the next several months – building the

database with CPA, HP, Apple and DSM - Lauren GC3 participation – Melissa MA Toxics Use Reduction Act newly proposed amendments on safer alternatives

(HB 1136) and on science advisory board (HB 1151) – Ken Federal agency meeting end of the month - Pam EPA chemical screening update (Tox21 program) - Lauren Green Screen in nano industry - Lauren Clariant benchmark claim - Lauren Top challenges – AlexNotes: Focus meetings over the next few months on software tool development with

CPA, HP, Apple and DSM. We continue to get more requests than we can handle. o Business model, validation, funding and interaction with TURI will continue

off-line. Lauren will send Univ of Netherlands process to Ken

o GC3 project already has TURI, CPA and HP involved. GC3 participation: sent survey to industry of 120 plasticizer, 14 plasticizers on the

top, picked 1st 7 (DEHP baseline), budget 10 quick screen (WA ecology process) with ToxServices, results to RT in May. Looking for as much corporate participation as possible. Need to get Dell on board. Melissa will send GC3 expectations to Alex and Alex will send to Flex and others.

Clariant benchmark claim: wants a BM label, CPA trying to stall, need a solid validation process first, will need this year.

o Who will do the validation? Lowell or TURI? TBD.o Lauren will send min requirements to Pam

MA amendments: the Act passed in 1970 with improvements in 2006, focus on production processes, 8 years ago an advocacy group wanted to expand products, this bill was introduced 6 yrs ago and 3 yrs ago passed the Senate, Ken an advisor, House finally proposed the amendments, aligns with Maine children’s products law focused on BFRs, BPA and Hg, master list of chemicals of concern in products or categories of concern based on govt authoritative list, alternatives assessment on about 2 a year by TURI, chemical action plan that include labeling or phase out, similar to CA 1879.

HB 1151 advisory board: industry fees to fund TURI wiki: alternatives assessment process, ID goal and scope thru screening and

technical and economic feasibility, IC2saferalternatives.org HP: 2 alternative assessment projects, Helen will chair an iNEMI alternative

assessment project, SOW to be developed. HP Americas regulatory materials person is new and Ken offered to have an offline meeting with us.

Federal agency meeting end of the Mar 31-Apr 1: shift risk assessment to a more proactive approach to determine chemicals of concern, 20 federal agency

participants (EPA, IEHS, DoE,…), what an alternatives assessment process is, see that next steps will inc engagement with industry

Green Screen in nano industry: NRDC looking at how to adopt the Green Screen

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 1 Mar 2011Attendees: CPA: Lauren Heine, Mark Rossi, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Shari

Franjevic, TURI/UML: Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Mark Buczek,

Alexander Brown, Greg Morose, Melissa Coffin HP: Diane Fisher, Helen Holder, Cory Robertson, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Shaw: Dennis McGavis Flextronics: Seb Nardecchia, Cliff Bast The WERCS: Tom Carter, Geoff Brooks, Frank Adams, Karen Lentz DSM: Frederic Petit, Luca Rosetto, Jan Arnauts Apple: Andy Baynes, Rob GuzzoAgenda: Introductions – 5’ (Diane) Issues, goals and plans review – 10’ (Alex) WERCs update – 5’ (Alex) What information needs to be protected in the database? (chemical info, GS

method) – 15’ (Lauren) What information needs to be presented in the shared database? Format? – 15’

(Lauren) Pinfa pilot update – 5’(Alex) CPA IP update – 5’ (Alex)Notes: Issues:

o There is no industry standard for making sure alternative substances are less hazardous from an environmental, health and safety standpoint

The transition to less hazardous alternatives must be done as an industry, not one company, for lower cost and assurance of supply

Multiple transitions are costlyo The industry is focused on getting out of restricted substances and not

ensuring the replacement material is less hazardouso Chemical composition of replacement materials are often proprietary

Goals:o Industry standard public tool for sharing the white list of chemicals based

on the Green Screen methodology focused on the electronic industry initially, do GSA once provides business value (a way for formulators to market their

products, creates competition) involve many stakeholder in the process to get buy-in chemical formulations and key data kept proprietary

o Harmonize with regulatory alternative assessments (e.g REACH, CA Green Chemistry AB1879)

Plans (add owners and dates):o Define different advisory teams (software, business, and technical)o Define getting on the white list process

Provide validated Green Screen scores of chemicals and chemical formulations

Establish non-disclosure agreements on chemicals and chemical formulations as needed (CPA lawyer on board)

o Identify a software provider that could meet our database requirements (The WERCS)

o Develop database for housing such a public white listo Develop business modelo Define final deliverableo Define operating model (thresholds, escalation - when different opinions,

consistency, open parts, closed parts, data gaps)o Define data securityo Get fundingo Get stakeholders bought ino Get users bought in

The WERCS: compliance and green chemistry software company, work with Walmart and about 12 other retailers, confidentiality a big concern, function as a 3rd party, supplier and retailer gets different sets of data, 4 layers of network security and firewalls, store formulations encrypted,

Output: benchmark on chemicals or the whole formulation or both? HP does not want the formulation, just the overall benchmark score. Apple wants the breakdown on the hazard table.

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 15 Feb 2011Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose, Melissa Coffin, Seb Nardecchia, Cliff Bast

Agenda: Goals for this forum GC3 program WERCS SOW ToxServices pilot Future meeting topics and next stepsNotes: Goals: Industry standard public tool for sharing a white list of chemicals based on

the Green Screen focused on the electronic industry initially Who else should be involved? Cisco? Flextronics only EMS (Electronics

Manufacturing Systems) company we have talked to. Working more with iNEMI companies. UL has reached out and interested in a partnership. EPEAT certification should be the long term focus.

o Apple involved, piloting the GS, using a 3rd party 3 areas:

o Stakeholder engagemento Certificationo Database and software development (white list)

GC3: Green Chemistry and Commerce Council started in 2005, group of due-based members across different companies, phthalate pilot project focused on plasticizers in power cords, 120 plasticizers, list to be circulated to iNEMI and HDPUG to vote on most interested plasticizers and resulted by end of Feb, do a quick screen on 12-15 and then a full Green Screen on those that pass the quick screen, hope to have results by May for roundtable meeting, may work with ToxServices for the Green Screen work and validation, goal is to make the results public

o GC3 website: http://www.greenchemistryandcommerce.org/home.php Can Green Screen be part of an existing initiative/program such as GC3?

GreenWERCS SOW and pilot: http://chemicalprofiler.wiki.zoho.com/_attach/1.0/Project-Coordination/GreenWERCs_pilot_Feb_9_2011.docx

Next meeting: Mar 1st, including Apple and DSM (formulator), WERCS pilot plan Should we have 2 different meetings:

1. technical and “wiki” (assessments and database, infrastructure, how to challenge results)

2. business and outreach, pilots

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 18 Jan 2011Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Mtg last week debrief Jan 24th with Flex - cancelled The WERCS proposal Collaboration with partners (Philips, Pinfa, Flex,…) ChemAdvisor Red list Project plan and timeline Peer review process update Business plan / funding Wiki site Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Next stepsNotes: HP-CPA mtg: Fri Jan 14th, Colin like a board member, does the funding intros, like

an ambassadoro Ron Hart: former EPA toxicology and research, consults with Bill Clinton,

on the CPA business advisory councilo May turn into some governance structureo HP’s participation requires high-level approval and clear business

justification, we would almost need an agreement between CPA and HP, Alex

o Can HP go with CPA to meet with Keiner-Perkins? Helen will run by management.

o Difference between strategic partner and board member? HP is more like a strategic partner

Mtg with Flex: 24th cancelled, can we use one of these meetings to meet with Flex? Yes, the Feb 1 mtg will be dedicated to bringing Flex up to speed on getting their suppliers to use the Green Screen. Can they use their full material disclosure info?

o Agenda: let them know what we are doing with the WERCS, Pinfa pilot, what does Flex want to do, partnering? HP lay the foundation of our requirements, faster understanding of what replacements are being used

The WERCS: start with FR, wire & cable material and plasticizers, how to make available/present the information

Pinfa: call next week, validation by ToxServices, long-term the WERCS be the validator, could license others such as Scivera to handle overflow or existing business relationships

Next steps: re-engage with BASF and others met at CARE conf to get on board with GS

o ChemAdvisor: Lauren working on, sounds like they already have a redlist, have the WERCS lisence?

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 4 Jan 2011Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: The WERCS proposal Jan meetings (Jan 14 HP-CPA, Jan 24th with Flex) ChemAdvisor Red list Project plan and timeline Peer review process update Business plan / funding Wiki site Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Collaboration with partners Next stepsNotes: HP-CPA mtg: Fri Jan 14th, discuss business plan including collaboration with others,

project timeline Flex mtg: Mon Jan 24th 9 am in Palo Alto, possibly suggest to provide them

GreenScreen training modeling off the training HP did for suppliers, also might suggest Flex to pilot ToxServices

The WERCS: new software would need to be written for the Green Screen, could license out the portal, they would allow any chemical profiler (whereas Scivera was only going to allow their own toxicologists), want to partner with HP and Apple, Alex will send the proposal to Helen and Diane for review

ChemAdvisor: Interested in becoming an authorized chemical profiler, may do a pilot with them

Next mtg: 18th Jan

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 21 Dec 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Project plan and timeline Peer review process update Business plan / funding Wiki site GreenWERCS, Scivera, others Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Red list (Ken?, ChemSec?) Collaboration with partners Meeting with Flex on Jan 14th Next steps: meetings in 2011Notes:

CPA working on goals for Q1 and next year, goal is to have the $100K match for raising $100K, plan to be incorporated in Q1 which will help attract investors

Partners: Flex and Philips from CARE conf, others from Clariant. How to work together? Ask the interested parties what they want first. BASF not actively engaged.

HP-CPA meeting on Jan 14th from 1pm – 3 pm at HP Palo Alto HP-CPA-Flex meeting Jan 27th

CPA leaning towards WERCS but still need costs, competitive issues with Scivera including their requirement that there can be no other assessors other than them, next step is to develop and contract with the WERCS to include high level reqs and process flow, Lauren will see if she can find what Kevin and Janet might have put together

Meetings in 2011 to continue every other Tuesday at 11am starting Jan 4th

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 7 Dec 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Peer review process update Business plan / funding GS training Bus-NGO mtg debrief Flex mtg debrief Project plan and timeline Wiki site GreenWERCS, Scivera, others Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Red list (Ken?, ChemSec?) Collaboration with partners Next meeting: Tues Dec 21st

Notes: Red list: ChemAdvisor has a list that is updated weekly. Can they provide a list

screening service? Pam recommends Lauren follow up with Nathan Peters, npeters@chemadvisor.com, 800-466-3750. Here is what Pam found out about ChemAdvisor and eChemPortal:

o The ChemAdvisor LOLI database contains over 3300 regulatory lists from around the world, including environmental, health and safety, international, inventories, and reference material necessary for Material Safety Data Sheet ((M)SDS) preparation. It is updated weekly, and ChemAdvisor provides quarterly updates in SQL database format to subscribers.  I spoke with Nathan Peters from their marketing department and briefly explained what we are doing and how we might use the LOLI.  His questions included what we think access to the GreenScreen wiki would be, and what types of products we would be interested in.  He's requested that we send an overview of our process to him, and they will discuss how they can participate with us.  His initial reaction is positive, and thinks that we can probably work out an agreement where we can have limited access to the LOLI for the companies participating in the wiki. 

o The eChemPortal is just that - a portal for data provided by others, who have approached the OECD and been approved by its Chemicals Committee and Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology

to be part of the portal.  Individual databases are maintained by their owners, and OECD does not provide any oversight to that process.  Therefore, the data found through the eChemPortal may or may not be updated, and one would have to check with the individual database owner to confirm its accuracy and currency.  You can find the list of databases that are part of this portal here.  The data from the portal is not extractable.

Wiki site: more of a working group and educational site Industry site: have a spreadsheet of questions and results. database, assessment

and validation need to be separate. Will be contracting a software developer. Waiting for Scivera to get back to us.

Peer review: all info in, EPA DfE released their hazard-based criteria (final in Spring) and want to align with their criteria as much as possible, GS2.0 expected to be released with the DfE final criteria. EPA thresholds very different and will likely align to these. DfE will never set benchmarks.

GS training: targeted at companies in Pacific Northwest, at REI, Dell (VP of sustainability, Mike Murphy, & another person) present and really tired hearing about HP, OR dept of quality present and wants another one at their place, another training may be at Nike

Business advisory council? Charter? Key partners? Alex working on this Flex mtg: Flextronics is interested in the GreenScreen and partnering with HP,

especially in the area of manufacturing chemicals. Many senior level people from Flextronics were in the room.

Bus-NGO mtg: plastics focus, LCA and GSA together? Textiles and food industry have a real need for GSA

GC3 pilot: plasticizers in cable formulations perf testing PVC and PVC-free, will get formulations and do the GS, funding commitments in, iNEMI doing alternatives project PVC-free project LCA and perf testing, high density project looking at PVC-free cables and perf testing, phthalates action plan with EPA DfE may be able to provide some GS data, Helen looking into a way to share the underlying data (not any confidential data)

Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 16 Nov 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Peer review process update CARE conf Business plan / funding Project plan and timeline Wiki site GreenWERCS, Scivera, others Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Red list (Ken?, ChemSec?) Next meeting: Tues Dec 7thNotes: Wiki site full, can’t delete files, can’t post meeting notes anylong, prototype,

would need to pay for additional services, have not been using collaboratively as we thought, what would we want to do and use it, Google docs may be a solution, is all the GS2.0 reviewer info on this site and locked out too?

CARE conf: ~200 people, major OEMs and suppliers, waste topics were 50%, GreenScreen was in the EcoDesign session at the end, room packed and emptied after the talk, Helen started with the business purposed, Lauren talked about the GS and Helen closed, Dell, Cisco, Flextronics, and iNEMI wanted to hear more, should market more in the EU

Red list: screen ChemSec list, is anyone consolidating the lists into a live, maybe Tom Lentz with Healthy Building Network with Tharos tool, may not have all the lists we care about included, ChemSec wants their SIN list included, Alex Stone has a quick screen he is presenting at the training end of Nov, could TURI or the Lowell Center be the keeper of the red list and even charge for use, funding and time to maintain would need to be figured out, e-chem portal (OECD) may be a resource for extracting what we need, LOLI (lists of lists) is a customized list service by Chem Advisors

Lauren talking to a major funder tomorrow, need a business advisory committee to scope chemical profilers and software partners, plan to develop and charter and team, met with GreenWERCS, BOMCheck is another contender, need to provide a clear RFP

PINFA: met with them last week, issue with many chemicals coming out to BM1, may need to change the logic for organics, like silica a BM1 not representative, met with another chemical member company that wants to get involved

Albemarle: not a member of PINFA, introduced a 75% BFR chemical at the conf Dec 1-2 BizNGO meeting

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 26 Oct2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Peer review process update CARE conf Business plan / funding Project plan and timeline Wiki site, GreenWERCS, others Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Red list (Ken?, ChemSec?) Next meeting: Nov 9th (CARE Conf), will push out to 16thNotes: CARE conf: presentation will be high-level based on HP executive briefer and 2.0,

Helen do framing and beginning, Lauren wrap up at end with mutual endorsement between HP-CPA,

CARE conf side meetings:o Need to get BASF engaged, Margo Klaus. Jodi Visco at BASF is the Product

Stewardship (Dennis has contact info)o Clariant going forward with their validations, and have Netherlands

University on board for independent reviewo Noveltec assessment should be done in a montho SAP, Richard Vermedge, Senior Director, introduced to cradle-to-cradle

Dupont: Jim Romine, product stewardship and reg affairs VP Sabic has come to CPA for a GS overview Scivera: early on unwilling to negotiate licensing fees, may be a better for profit

fit, willing to make the GS default tools, subscription fees highest, they will be in Palo Alto on Monday, Alex will set up meeting with Helen at 2:00, they have a model that could work, they are interested to develop a database/library for sale

or licensed, validation triggered by 3 events: 1) customer wants to publicize and market outside 4) Green or yellow or benchmark 5. GS results should be turned around in 14 days and < $6K per material (formulation/article) (MBCD protocol $8K per material, $800 per chemical), Roger McFadden looking for a recommendation, Dennis would like a demo

Technical team meeting on the 16th Nov at MBDC GS license and trademark: CPA needs to own it, CPA part of Tides and this was

causing problems, working with IRS, can’t bring legal on board until resolved Timeline:

o Q410: trademark and license, peer review incorporation, choose platformo Q111 (Jan): pilot with GS2.0 on new platform, marketing and

communication plan, 3-yr business model, PINFA pilot resultso Q2: service platform pilot results, incorporate pilot learningso Q3: launch

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 28 Sept2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Peer review process update CARE conf Business plan / funding Project plan and timeline Wiki site, GreenWERCS, others Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Next meeting: Oct 12th

Notes: PINFA: mtg this Thurs, working with Margo from BASF, Karl-Heinz at Noveltec,

Adrian Baird at Clariant on confidential GreenScreen assessments and LCA, EPA Deca project, want to agree on assessment results, preliminary results include a 4 and 2, need to validate the results before sharing externally

CARE conf: Helen will be there and presenting, side educational session for a small group of OEMs Tues 2-4, unfortunately prior to our presentation, Adrian would like to expand the discussion to emerging regs and EPEAT/eco-labeling, should consult with Andy too, Alex and Lauren will draft an agenda and participants for email input

CA Green Chemistry Initiative: published and includes that companies are required to do a GreenScreen assessment, need to say “competitive hazard” with the GS as an example, Helen will give them this feedback

Plan: GSA and validation and wiki site all separate, will need several pilots before launch, likely not to happen by the end of 2011, and there is also funding

GS2.0 review: got all the input (including DFE, MBDC, and GreenPeace), 32 people, beginning of the year to have the method wrapped up

Business plan: meetings with Adam not happening, should we fold into this meetings

Bill McDonough: Helen met with him, wants Lauren on his board

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 14 Sept2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark

Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Peer review process CARE conf Business plan / funding Project plan and timeline – do at next mtg on the 28th Wiki site, GreenWERCS, others Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Next meeting: Sept 28th

Notes: Peer review: went about 2 weeks longer, 31 individuals out of 45, waiting on 2

more important stakeholders (DFE, MBDC), GreenPeace may provide more, need to focus on endocrine disruptor section, have some substantial comments, had hoped to have comments incorporated by the end of the month and now looks like the 1st of the year, getting it right is more important than speed, may want to have more topical and broad discussions, need to understand the EU regs

Has CPA considered making GS an IPC or IEC standard? Some disadvantages are that these take a long time and it not CPA’s ownership

o Another idea for standardization is: Paul Firth UL Environment, paul.firth@ulenvironment.com, 2-3 years old group, just purchased eco-labels

CARE/messaging: will not have GC 2.0 ready to launch at the CARE conference, CPA introduces the GS, HP talks about their using of version 1.0 on PVC-free powercords, and then CPA talk about V2 and the future.

GreenWERCs – working on another SOW draft Scivera – not a good fit, they want to incorporate into their tool, they are focused

the automotive industry PINFA – HP, Apple, CPA and Clariant met, Clariant challenging an endpoint, will

submit GS results to Netherlands Univ ($1M from EU Commission) and will include LCA. Noveltec resolving some endpoints still, BASF may be interested

GC3 – phased project, quick screen, full screen, Green Chemistry Challenge State of Maine – alternative FR used in plastic pallets contracting a consultant,

Maine will validate the results

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 31 Aug 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Business plan / funding CARE conf Project plan and timeline Wiki site and GreenWERCS GS 2.0 review Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Next meeting: Sept 14th

Notes: GS tech review summary end of Sept, 30-35 reviews

Got a small grant from WA Dept of Ecology to do training before the Bus-NGO mtg in Dec for ~75 people, open to WA businesses and customers, driven by WA TRI list to use safer chemicals, plan to do quick screen training

Business planning with Adam Whinston: have a presentation and primer now, bringing a business consultant to develop modules for different audiences

CPA met with marketing and business consultant to help with matching funds, if CPA raises $100K then they will match it with $100K

OEM and supplier roundtable idea to discuss how to best design the business model, interface to wiki site. Include HP, Apple, IBM, Sony, Dell, DSM, Sabic,…

Validation – owe Pam a response to her draft 3rd party profiles – other interested: NSF, Science Strategies Walmart sustainability consortium hired Lowell to do hazard assessment tools

(currently focused on energy and waste) and will need to look at chemicals DFE developing a hazard assessment, looking at the various options (inc GS) and

will make recommendations GreenWERCS: next step is a SOW (Lauren), initial draft discussed with HP and

Apple, met with other software/database companies (IHS and Scivera) that should be offered to bid, HIS is likely to provide a full material disclosure solution and no analysis, Scivera has a good chance of providing some competition to GreenWERCS, Scivera does both a hazard and risk, but their hazard assessment is more based on R phrases, Helen suggested Scivera replace their hazard with GS. Another is ChemAdvisor. Have not contacted Actio or SAP. SAP will not have the toxicology expertise, they would have to outsource this. Open Data Registry – Lauren will be talking with them (Gil Friend, Jeff Stein), they are a new group

CARE conf launch – GS2.0 for WW open review, have to harmonize with DFE, hoping Helen will be at the conf, CPA will set up meetings with people at the conf, one-on-one meetings most persuasive, still need to shape what we want to launch (inc pilots)

PINFA pilot: Noveltec and Clariant has had both of their chemicals reviewed, planning to share with CPA, HP, Apple and DFE, using GS1.0 and a bit of 2.0, will share the outcome with Netherlands University sponsor, they will provide recommendations on process and cost

Thinking will need a 2-year re-validation, Helen thinks this is way too short and recommends an event triggered review such as an issue occurred

GC3 pilot: update unknown, will provide update at our next meeting Project plan and timeline: Diane request Alex to be prepared to provide an update

at our next meeting Helen will be meeting with Bill McDonough before the Clinton Global Initiative

meeting (mid Sept) to educate him on the GS work HP has been doing, meeting with Beth Rattner next week on CPII, cradle-to-cradle a huge challenge for complex electronic products

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 3 Aug 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: project with the Green Product Innovation Institute - Beth Rattner Business plan / funding CARE conf Project plan and timeline Wiki site and GreenWERCS

GS 2.0 review Pilots: PINFA, GC3 Next meeting: Aug 17 11:00 am PST

Notes: Green Product Innovation Institute: cradle to cradle certification will sit with

international non-profit, just launched in May, AB1879 goal is cradle to cradle by 2050, DTSC main audit facility, institute mission to have LEAD-like certification, 5 categories: social, materials, takeback, energy, and clean water. Clinton Global Initiative in Sept and would like to highlight e-waste not being handled efficiently, would like to see HP and Apple lead this effort and global standard for consumer electronics, Matt Kistler from Walmart one of the key advisor, website: gpinnovation.org

Business plan: may need funding for consultants to help scale up for the launch, did get some funding in 2 sets, one cash and the other is a $100K challenge grant, still looking for some additional funding or in-kind grants

GS 2.0 out for review, comments due back 15th Aug, but likely not until the end of Aug, expect to have GS 2.0 complete by end September

Wiki: do we really just need a website since not using the wiki, need the GS report and the educational piece, still struggling with what to release in Nov, a lot depends on what happens with GreenWERCS

GreenWERCS: SOW in progress for a pilot, they will not be ready for 6-12 months Pinfa: Clariant and Noveltech each submitted 2 chemicals GSA requests to

ToxServices, to review at HP Sept 7th, hope to feature these at the CARE conf. Pinfa dealing with melanmine cyanurate being that it is a new REACH label classification.

TURI (Pam) presented their draft technical review plan, http://chemicalprofiler.wiki.zoho.com/_attach/1.0/Project-Coordination/TURI%20Green%20Screen%20Wiki--Draft%20technical%20review%20072110.doc

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 25 May 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg Morose

Agenda: Business plan Project plan and timeline Wiki site GS 2.0 / tech team Pilots: PINFA, GC3 CARE conf Next meeting: June 15 11:00 am PST

Notes: Pinfa: met with them last week, ToxServices doing an iterative cost est for the 12

chemicals TURI: tech review process looks ok Ok to decouple GSA from company names, goal is to share data Zinc borate: would like to get a sponsor GS2.0: peer review targeted for July GreenPeace: was proposed as June 9th, will push out review with them to July to

coincide with 2.0 review period, want it to be a Halo mtg, very important to build

the rapport and get them on board with the GS, Halos in Vancouver, Corvallis, Boise, Ft. Collins and Palo Alto; Vancouver closest for Shari and Lauren

Walmart sustainability consortium: would like help Walmart adopt the GS, Alex will followup with both Walmart and Green Products

Wiki site: concerned about scale and size capacity, may need a database structure, this why we have been discussing partnerships, wiki site today is planned for the initial launch, need a long term plan with a partner, how to fund and sustain long term? Hoping to hire Kevin to do the disclaimer and partner agreements (HP planning to hire Kevin and likely cannot share his time), CPA will need to come up with something else, hiring database/IT people is fairly easy

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 11 May 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis, Greg MoroseAgenda: Business plan, cost est for evaluating chemicals Project plan and timeline Wiki site GS 2.0 / tech team Pilots: PINFA, GC3 CARE conf Next meeting – May 25

Notes: Business plan visuals developed, presented to PINFA, and DSM June 14th PINFA to agree on chemicals to GS TURI technical review still being developed, Mark helping out GC3 pilot evaluating plasticizers, got agreement from the group to do GSA, don’t

want to run all 20 chemicals, can stop once reach a BM1, 4 steps: 1) quick screen (stop if BM1, 2-4 hours) 2) full GS 3) technical review 4) wiki. Still trying to figure out the budget and timeline $3-5K per chemical, 10-14 hours. GS2.0 to be ready by Sept. July start. Would like results by next April (next mtg)

CPA working with WA State Univ on automating the GS CPA has a red list, needs updating, that are the lowest benchmark Greenworks, works with Walmart, working on an automated GS tool, suppliers

pay, HP interested? Is the wiki tool a temporary solution for ~1-2 years? Alex shared the timeline, missing wiki site development and owners, discussing

the long-term plan with the CPA board, may need HP’s help/support in partnership discussions/meetings such as Green Products Institute and DTSC.

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 13 Apr 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz, Dennis McGavis

Agenda: Business plan, cost est for evaluating chemicals

Wiki site GS 2.0 / tech team PINFA mtg debrief CARE conf Next meeting – Apr 27 (Diane, Ken, Mark and Pam can’t make it, GC3. Lauren,

Alex and Helen avail, Helen to lead), May 11

Notes: Dennis McGavis – Reg Affairs Director at Shaw (flooring company), interested to

learn how to implement the GreenScreen and long term business model TURI reviews, need to develop a procedure and guidelines for tech review, review

against a standard, need funding, found $10K to get started and can move forward,

Still need a funding model, will use PINFA as a pilot with ToxServices, pilot will start the end of May, Alex will provide a draft model

CARE conf: Ferdinand Hermann from HP will represent HP, paper should have Helen’s name on it, abstract due the end of May

Diane will check if CPA can use the HP Green Screen slide in their business plan Helen supports licensing, need to think about how to structure the fees and what

each party gets out of it, need licensing for 3 areas (tech reviewers, stds,o Automatic population of the fieldso Free public access to library, not everyone will want a pay versiono Don’t want anyone to violate the logic of the GS, e.g. TPP as a benchmark

1 IBM presentation on Apr 23rd 9 am PST with Lauren and Paul Mazurkiewicz PINFA: cost est underway, 3rd party profile costs complete, tech review and

management fees TBDo 3rd party profile costs probably ~$4-6K per chemical (12-15

hours/chemical)o BPA and MgHO will take a long time

BPA: discussing endocrine disruption as a benchmark 1, proposal at next committee mtg

PolyOne another pilot GC3 looking at piloting plasticizers, probably several months to get started,

working with several companies, GC3 stands for Green Chemistry and Commerce Council

Grand plan/launch: after the CARE conf for a US launch? Want to go live in Nov. Want the PINFA pilot results before launch, not sure we will have the GC3 results

o Alex to create a timeline

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 30 Mar 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz

Agenda: Phthalate and GC3 pilot Business plan, cost est for evaluating chemicals Wiki site GS 2.0 / tech team PINFA mtg debrief CARE conf Next meeting – Apr 13

Notes: Phthalate GC3 pilot – Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3, network of

companies meet regularly to promote green chemistry, Lowell sponsor), keep this pilot separate from wiki effort, 3rd party do the GSA, TURI do the tech review, collaborate with DFE?, some or all phthalates?, want GSV2.0 but the data is the same, other sectors interested (e.g. flooring, HP only electronics?), CPA will coordinate with GC3 and DFE, who is going to pay???

PINFA pilot – we hope to get agreement from them to move forward tomorrow Funding – CPA and TURI to meet off line to discuss funding and blind trust CARE conf – slots getting full, Alex to draft abstract including HP, may be possible

to send a local HP person GreenPeace – Helen pinged them for a May review of the GS, want them as a

GS2.0 review Biz plan – still discussing costs for quick and full screen, would be helpful to have

the results from the HP GSA training survey (to be sent out via email), Apple wants $1200-1300 review of a chemical, CPA thinks it is more like $3K min, $25K for a formulation (~17 chemicals), could have repetition of chemicals but could have more/new information, may need to set a time limit since the last GSA, want a business model such that several customers pay for a given chemical, HP does not want the formulations for IP protection, HP using GS1.0 until 2.0 final, 2.0 just a rescoring – data is the same, don’t let 2.0 hold up the tech review

Tech review process – CPA and TURI to develop, Alex will set up Disclaimer – Alex working with a lawyer to propose some language Kevin – possibility to work with CPA as an intern this summer Greenworks – working on a way to automate the GSA (do Walmart’s system) Halliburton – interested in the GS

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 16 Mar 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz

Agenda: Business plan, cost est for evaluating chemicals Wiki site GS 2.0 / tech team PINFA mtg debrief CARE conf Next meeting – Mar 30

Notes: Business plan will be divided into 3 pieces: 1) funding plan 2) sales plan 3)

business and operations. Adam will draft the sales plan in a PowerPoint. Alex working on the fund raising, and Lauren on the business and operations side in PowerPoint.

PolyOne (Meg) called CPA and wanting a GSA done, what do they have to do and what are the cost?? CPA still in the middle of a revision, review process not in place yet. PolyOne will do their own GSA, and want the confidential disclosure agreements in place ASAP. They have to scope out what they want, full GSA. Will send to ToxServices to do the assessment and 2 reports: 1) full for PolyOne, 2) redacted report, w/o confidential info. CDA with ToxServices and PolyOne.

o Is there a deminimus? – yes, 1000 ppm

o Does HP want combustion study info? Which test?o Individual chemical assessments should be separate from full formulations

Want to have the GSA of individual chemicals and the final formulation (w/o knowing what the recipe, or conf info, of the full formulation)

Individual chemicals do not have to be associated with a formulator But formulators may want to advertise their final formulation

benchmark Discount by making the information public

o Told them that they would have to run the GSA through the technical team for an additional cost, and required to get posted on the wiki site

Maybe TURI is the only one who can post to the site, and in this case do we need a wiki site or just a website?

o Seeing people put the GS into standards, CPA should set up licensing agreements with these companies to protect their copyright and trademark

o We want companies to do GSA, and not wait for the wiki site and processo ToxServices will charge about 108 hours for 17 chemicalso Who owns the reoccurring chemicals and those assessments?

Over time their will be leverage and costs saved by not having to re-assess existing GSed chemicals

o HP is most concerned about the FR and plasticizer replacements, the priority

Antioxidants and UV stabilizers could be a class latero How does the ToxServices results flow into a technical review, streamlined

and for a reasonable cost? TURI can negotiate something in the short term. TURI would not have a direct relationship with the customer, not contracting financially with customer, but could sign NDA directly with customer. CPA sign the NDA for tech reviews, and cover TURI? CPA direct customer to 3rd party profiler and come back to CPA for tech review, CPA have customer send ToxServices report directly to TURI or to CPA to send to TURI?

How deep does TURI evaluate the report? Spot check, audit quality control plan, or review entire report? This will effect the cost

Need to develop a process, criteria, flowchart of how the technical review will work. Will likely be an audit or spot checking. Will spend more time on a customer do not have experience with.

TURI will likely develop an internal audit process for their evaluation process

Maybe instead of a grant to TURI, some of the fees go to TURI in the 1st year.

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 2 Mar 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz

Agenda: Business plan, cost est for evaluating chemicals Wiki site HP training and survey GS 2.0 / tech team

CARE conf Next meeting – Mar 16

Notes: HP GS training – focused on PVC-free power cords, pilot for approved material list,

hope to do at a larger scale, all day training including how and why, risk vs hazard and lifecycle, discussed endpoints and the process, seemed like the formulators got it and took in seriously, were able to generate a score, would like to go to a library for this information, pre-screening a good idea! Formulators ask FR companies for data/benchmarks, business opportunity and race to get on the AML. Pam would like the slides. Okay so say publicly that we are doing GS training.

Business plan – Ken presented a proposal for reviews that could include: a Completeness Check, a Validity Check, and a Source Check, followed by an Evaluation Decision. This document is on the wiki site at: http://chemicalprofiler.wiki.zoho.com/attach/1.0/Project-Coordination/TURI%20Green%20Screen%20Technical%20Review%20Cost%20Estimates%20-%20DRAFT.doc

o how long the assessments good for? How often re-review? How handle?o Will have one point of contact, central coordinator at CPA, manages the

flow and schedule of reviews, scoping the work and quotes and paymento Payment/PO upfront to blind trust

Pinfa pilot – this Spring, about 5 chemicals, mtg with them this Friday

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 16 Feb 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz

Agenda: Proctor and Gamble Business plan, 3rd party review Wiki site HP training and survey GS 2.0 / tech team CARE conf Next meeting – Mar 2nd

Notes: Helen speaking and on panel at TMS conference on GS, proctor and gamble

attacked the GS by saying it was “reckless and dangerous” and “can’t make a decision”…2 times on a panel, may not fit with PG, Helen argued that good fit for electronics industry now and hazard good approach, PG claim to be doing full LCA on every constituent

Business plan – Bev doing another draft, focus on wiki as a vehicle for GS and educational tool, get GS 2.0 wrapped up, get technical review team, talked with Apple, they feel that the GS is the only thing out there, looking for more guidance, 3rd party review good and trusting, may not want to share their assessments on a public site (IBM too), Alex will be talking to potential funders, people seem fairly comfortable with ~$6K/chemical, may do a pilot with PINFA, still try to determine how much review is needed (only key endpoints), Janet suggested pilot 1-2 chemicals and work out bugs and lessons learned, workload issue at TURI, if continuous then TURI would assign a person

Pilot – melamine cyanurate, how many pieces need to be outsourced, costs (virtual for pilot), paying reviewers, timing, mock contract with 3rd party (Tides) or CPA and Lowell Center or TURI (and they pay contractor(s) if needed), Pam will be the POC at TURI

CPA will look into funding for technical review team, joint proposal with TURI CPA will draft a paper for CARE conf, HP may co-author, and TURI too? PINFA real pilot – to be discussed Mar 5th

HP GS training - all day Feb 24th for formulators, want to show a wiki active page and share the demo URL, appendix to 2.0, teach 1.0, will walk thru each end point and thresholds, 40 people from HP will be dialing in, HP training survey questions:1. I would be willing to pay about $5,000 to about $7,000 to a 3rd party to do the Green Screen

assessment for ONE of the typical chemicals in my formulation (note: this is the approximate price per chemical, not for all the chemicals in the formulation, and a review of existing information).o Strongly agreeo Agreeo Neutralo Disagreeo Strongly disagreeo We would prefer to do the assessments ourselves

2. I would pay about $100 to about $500 a year for access to a database of chemicals that have been Green Screened.o Strongly agreeo Agreeo Neutralo Disagreeo Strongly disagree

3. I would be willing to sponsor a database of Green Screened chemicals for a minimum of $10K.o Strongly agreeo Agreeo Neutralo Disagreeo Strongly disagree

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 2 Feb 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz

Agenda: Business plan

o Walk through the new model and 3 levelso Plan for engaging an adhoc advisory group to help with the Biz Plano group’s feedback re legal/liability issueso GSA time, cost (and what would DSM say, and willing to pay?)

GS 2.0 / tech team Wiki site update, notification of GS V 2.0 upload Wiki launch at CARE conf Nov 2010 Clariant/PINFA meeting Next meeting(s)

Notes: Clariant/PINFA meeting, Alex will set up a meeting including HP

Want biz plan to be ready to submit by May as an abstract for CARE conf launch Soft launch for electronics in Nov on current wiki platform (~ 50 chemicals) Wiki will not be the long term platform, no index, need a platform to handle other

sectors and more information 3rd party profiler (vs reviewer) has a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). Tech review

team has 2 responsibilities: 1) audit 3rd party profiler (are they following the QAP) and 2) spot checks (on end points)

Want to avoid TURI paying 3rd parties (too much trouble), and use the blind trust When do we send them off for review, need a protocol (such as not silica dioxide) 3 levels for GSA: 1) quick scan (1-2 chemicals confident are a benchmark 0/1) 2)

standard – comprehensive assessment and 3) custom – such as assessing alternatives, interpreting results and helping make decisions

Quick scan = ~8-10 hours at least Standard/comprehensive – 10-20 hours at least Survey suppliers for what they would pay. HP will hold a GS training for

formulators, and can do a survey then. Diane will develop a training feedback form and a question on pricing.

Next meeting: Tues, Feb 16th 11 am PST. We will keep the meeting time, Bev will check if Ken can tune in for the 1st 15 min.

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 5 Jan 2010Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic, Paul Mazurkiewicz

Agenda: Business plan

o Plan for engaging an adhoc advisory group to help with the Biz Plano group’s feedback re legal/liability issues

GS 2.0 / tech team Wiki site update, notification of GS V 2.0 upload Clariant/PINFA meeting debrief Next meeting(s)

Notes: Paul advertised the GS in China with our suppliers, and all very interested. Used

Helen’s slides at a high level, mentioned the wiki, they liked the idea of a repository, and willing to pay into it

3-5 year business plan 2 phases of funding: 1) foundation, fees 2) training and licensing Market place concept versus a database, formulators see the GS wiki as a way to

sell their products, but these formulators will likely be unwilling to share their full recipes and maybe just the GSA

State and government access should at least give in-kind donations Different users with different intents and levels of access Provide an “abstract” and if want more details, then you have to pay for it, the

government agencies were against this, abstract with a benchmark is likely 90% of the users

Information flow scenarios need to be worked out, some complications with quoting

o one scenario is an NGO wants a chemical assessed in a quick scan to know if a red chemical (e.g. causes cancer, one end point), we get a quote, comes out as a benchmark 0, no record of who made the original request

o HP scenario, we would occasionally have direct requests, our suppliers will come to us with a new solution, these suppliers will need to go to the formulator and request a GSA, the formulator will initiate the GSA, the formulator may do the GSA in house, by a 3rd-party, or may need the wiki team to do it. We would only accept GSA that have been through the review committee. We will contractually obligate our suppliers to have a GSA of a benchmark 2 or higher.

o Default may be to send a CAS# and a check, then offer discounts for pre-research.

o Issues are when there is no or little data to do the GSAo The EPA is already doing assessments, can we leverage off their existing

funding/resources? Lauren will meet with Clive. If one constituent is a benchmark 1, and all the others are higher, the material is

a benchmark 1. Can also score products versus just CAS# May only post those that give us the full formulation Good Guide involvement – any issues? Helen thought they had expertise on the IT

side, a lot of users, and the content is very different. They will be doing a laptop rating. Alex and Mark meeting with them in 2 weeks.

GS wiki for the electronics industry will be about < 20 formulators, ~15 OEMs, < 500 users

Will need some licensing agreement with Lowell, and who is responsible for errors or inaccuracies, 3rd party responsibilities and liabilities, will need indemnification written up, we should not hold people/groups responsible for errors, we will fix them as soon as found, and we will have errors, what if we got sued, Janet will check with what TURI did

Next meeting: in 2 weeks 19th Jan at 11:00 am PST. We will review the business plan and legal/liability/disclaimer language.

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 15 Dec 09Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic

Agenda: GS 2.0 / tech team Wiki site update Business plan and operating model Next meeting(s)

Notes: GS 2.0 / tech team: will upload draft version on wiki site, next meeting after the

1st of the year, working on a review strategy of the draft Wiki site update: we should identify some triggers/criteria for when we might

need to go to another site, should start with design criteria, we needed this soho prototype, will we be able to get some IT support from Good Guide, soho site should get us thru a while, keep documenting what we want and improvements needed

Benchmark numbers, letters or just colors: letters align with school grades, internationally the grading system will not make sense, with numbering most common question is what is good 1 or 4, procurement engineers like numbers, quantitative, easy to understand, Ken does not like the letters, Bev prefers numbers, colors will not come through in black and white and copies, when expand benchmark 2 will likely go to 1-5, recommend going to a zero-4 scale, zero presents a negativity, 4 stays the best

F2F stakeholder meeting Dec 9th: interest from regulatory bodies and that it was going to be an open/transparent tool, Libby from EPA wanting to be part of the review team, may have 2 sets of stakeholders, suppliers will likely not be interested in the end points and only the final score, need to create the comparative table like Helen has shown, funding has to go to a non-corporation such as a university/Lowell, working well as a socialization exercise and having the stakeholders able to comment on it and it not being complete

Lowell could manage all the technical reviews and could outsource much of the work to groups such as EPA DFE, and some with internal resources. Lowell would need funding to do it.

revenue flows and where does it go??? Launch money and self-sustaining money. Should the tech review money be separate and never go to CPA? Member money fund the wiki site management. May need to think about corporate money going to Lowell for tech reviews.

Business plan: Adam Whinston from HP is helping CPA on developing a business plan, Diane also provided some framing questions in developing recommendations

Next meeting(s): add Shari to dist list, who else should be added? Add Ron Guzzo? Removed? Invite Alex Brown, Liz and Pam as needed. Lauren will check if Mark B still wants to be on the dist list. Reconvene Jan 5th every other Tues at 11 am PST.

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 20 Nov 09Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson, Shari Franjevic

GreenPeace wants to hear more about the GS and interested, lead scientist will be reviewing the GS, want to make sure they understand the GS, Helen pointing them to 1.0

Revision control needs to managed for the GS 2.0 Lauren talked to Paul Mazurkiewicz, HP, and he will be doing some GS training

with HP China suppliers Lauren sent everyone a budget draft, full management of tech team review and

any addl expert review could cost on order of $7.5K, would allow public comment, 3rd party reviewer would only want to provide one review and then done, tech team reviewers would need to manage comments and updates, min cost for tech team review would cost about $5K

Manufacturers should subsidize the review costs Could we get a consortia to pay for the reviews such as ITI? Needs to be a mechanism for re-negotiating the review fee, should have a approx

fee, and quote it each time, some chemicals easier than others Lowell would rather have a big contract over a long period of time, than small 3 people should be sufficient for the tech team review, odd number good for

voting, 5 people seems too many, people should have varied expertise 2 hours per review Can we get a grad student or administrative person to do wiki management

(posting, light review to assure the pieces are there)? Someone has to manage the grad student, and handle hard questions. This person may develop to handle more over time. Could be a full-time job. Start as a half-time and see if it will grow.

Tox services did a GSA on Melamine Cyanurate, HP will review this assessment and provide feedback

Wiki template – have GS rating to top, can put above, default hide TOC, CAS# with chemical name title, chemical structure at the bottom, will smile notations, change television casings to plastics for tags

Disclaimer to be reviewed by lawyer later in Dec Action items:

o update data templates as discussed today (Shari)o review Melamine Cyanurate assessment and provide feedback (Helen)o finalize disclaimer (Mark)o prospectus/business plan, inc. ownership (Lauren)

provide a business plan expert to help (Diane)o Funding (Alex)o GS 2.0 demo ready on wiki site (Lauren) o What questions should we ask during the Biz-NGO mtg? (All)

Next meeting: Tues Dec 1st 11 am PST, 2pm EST

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 11 Nov 09Attendees: Lauren Heine, Sherry (CPA), Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown, Cory Robertson

Tox services will do the assessments to start, will need other reviewers Thinking about % fee, go towards quality control, expert committee, wiki site

managemento Alternative revenue system, train the trainer for GS reviews or teach to do

GS reviews (in lieu of access fees)o Review and not-reviewed section?

Foundation for funding (usually 6-12 months to secure) Paul Mazurkiewicz, HP, planning to train HP suppliers in Asia Disclaimer, Mark sent out, will update GS2.0 hazard table ~60 pages. GHS categories included. Re-add Helen Holder,

Paul Mazurkiewicz, and Cory Robertson. Nov 18 Wed 8 am PST next meeting. Environmental Defenses joined, Art out with back issues, Alex Stone from WA Univ, Healthy Building Network

o Engaging with CA Green Chemistry and DTSC, goal would be for them to adopt GS2.0

Wiki site, Pradeep added a logo, search by function, will add tox services data, templates still being updated, references at the bottom of the page, input to add smiles and notations

Dec 9th meeting: many people have RSVPed, Helen Holder will be there and speaking on the 8th, Diane will not be attending (but will reconsider)

HP meeting with Green Peace (Esia and Casey) on Wed, we will try (again) to get them on board and involved in this work, at least share with them what we are doing, and getting a shift to “what is better”, use the words “informed substitution towards Green Chemistry” with GP

Next meeting: Fri 20 Nov 9 am PST

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 27 Oct 09Attendees: Lauren Heine, Sherry (CPA), Diane Fisher, Kevin Hetherington, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown

GS 2.0: hazard table in good shape, interest in 5th benchmark, add very high levels for some endpoints, working with Alex Stone and Art Fong, building in data gaps and quality, and exposure data, Apple interested, mtg after Biz-NGO mtg to present wiki and get input

Updated schedule:o Nov 10th – data templates updated (Janet and Lauren)o Nov 10th – disclaimer update (Mark)o Nov 10th – prospectus/business plan (inc. ownership) updated (Lauren)o Nov 24th - Acquire funding (Alex)o End Nov – GS 2.0 ready for demoo Dec 1st - GS 2.0 live on wiki site (this still may be in draft form)o Dec 9th - Business-NGO wiki demo and input, get co-ownershipo Jan 2010 - Pilot (beta test) with tox services, and others (fully functional,

disclaimer, permissions, fees, anyone can enter data, QC)o Feb 2010 - Final GS 2.0 on wiki release with PR

GS 2.0 on the wiki site means:o New process is posted (download the document) or use it on lineo Template updatedo Existing data and benchmarks updated

Next meeting: Tues, Nov 10th

o Following meeting: Fri Nov 20th 9 am PST (12 noon EST) – no meeting on Tues Nov 24th

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 13 Oct 09Attendees: Lauren Heine, Diane Fisher, Mark Rossi, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Liz Harriman, Janet Clark, Pam Eliason, Alexandra McPherson, Beverley Thorpe, Mark Buczek, Alexander Brown

Wiki site development and progress Lauren paid the $12/month so we will have more capabilities ACTION: all team members go to the wiki site and review its functionality and provide

feedback to Janet or post a comment on the siteo http://wiki.zoho.com/login.do?serviceurl=http%3A%2F

%2Fwiki.zoho.com%2Facceptin.do%3FIID%3DzC67120x67020x6702880I7R5n-d6DQ9N79DM7Sc8c96e1c-eK6y6h806J7s0b6j6is961b

Mark: add existing CPA assessments to site (specific to electronics, not pesticides) Mark: add disclaimer to site and figure out who is going to own the assessments (this is a

legal, IP issue, treating the GSA as an asset) Bev/Alex: get funding, figure out if we add fees (see prospectus), and donation?, to site

Schedule Reviewed schedule (see below), willing to work towards the dates, want to do a big

event, separate from the Biz-NGO event, to be able to have the time to walk people through it, possible Dec 9th

Next meeting: 27th Oct

Green Screen (GS) wiki and organizational discussion 29 Sept 09Attendees: Lauren Heine and Diane Fisher Technical committee update (Lauren) - building hazard threshold table, and make as easier

for the user as possible (e.g. go to cancer high, takes to appropriate authoritative lists), working with Alex Stone and Art Fong (IBM), incorporating Global Harmonized System criteria, EPA test methods

o 20th Oct – next technical committee meetingo Have not addressed exposure issues (e.g. silica), not a top priority, Helen –

please make sure Lauren has HP’s suggestions on this issue

o Pradeep – helping to work on the wiki, entered a new chemical, developing a template for entering, create a site for GS method, goal is to click back and forth between the method and the assessment

o Lauren setting up a list of GS 2.0 reviewers Is there someone from HP that would be willing to review it? – Helen?

Need a business plan – Ken o Will need to pay GS assessment reviewers when wiki site is up (like CleanGredients)o If company enters their own data, need QC (is the QC a paid 3rd party or the technical

committee?), who pays for QC? The wiki project or company?o Formulators should pay for access to the datao Give recognition to those that provide data (or pay them?)

Need to get in front of CA Green Chemistry, would they be willing to fund it? Do we wait until Bus-NGO or get them on board before? – Mark

o Lauren in CA on Oct 14th

Lauren presenting the GS to ITI materials team in Oct (19th?) and to Sabic mid Oct, ok to mention the wiki and HP (but please review with HP prior)

Schedule: Oct 27th - Business plan complete (Ken) Nov 24th - Acquire funding (Alex) Oct 27th - Wiki site ready for internal review (with GS 1.0, without GS 2.0) Nov 24th - Wiki site edits made from review, site ready By the end of Oct - GS 2.0 technical committee (internal) expert review Mid Nov – GS 2.0 improvements made based on review, and ready for external

expert review End Nov – final GS 2.0 edits Dec 2nd - GS 2.0 live on wiki site Mid Nov - Draft PR statement, internal review End Nov - Finalize PR statement Dec 3rd – PR wiki release Dec 8th - Business-NGO forum wiki demoNext meeting:

o 13th Oct 2009, 11 am PSTo U.S. toll-free dial-in number: 877.675.4345, participant code: 857-2164 (same every time)o Diane will send a reminder the day before each meeting

Green Screen wiki and organizational discussion 15 Sept 09Attendees: Helen Holder, Janet Clark, Bev Thorpe, Diane Fisher Diane apologizes for sending out the meeting invite at the last minute today (it

was all set up after the Aug 11 meeting but I forgot to send it). We will meet every 2 weeks on Tuesdays from 11 am – 12 pm PST. Next meeting is Sept 29th (Janet and Bev will not be able to attend)

Good news: Turi funded until June of next year! Janet reviewed the tremendous work she has done on the site. Things to check

out are the following: online forum for adding and responding to comments, chemicals can be searched by alphabetical order or CAS # or by function, roles and responsibilities

Roles and responsibilities:o All – check, review, edit or comment on your roles and responsibilities o Lauren – get Pradeep on board and manageo Lauren – document how CleanGredients is different on the GreenScreen

wiki site, and leverage CleanGredients website features for GreenScreen wiki site

o Bev – outreach communicationo Timeline – Ken (Diane willing to help)

o Wiki format, help drive demo for Dec - Janeto Add existing CPA data to wiki site - Marko Complete legal disclaimer on website - Marko Determine who owns the assessments IP (transfer to CPA?) - Marko Tech committee progress updates, and Green Screen 2.0 - Laureno Prospectus - Janet/Keno Funding - Alex/Bev

Who manages the money? Rose Foundation? What about contacting others beside Venture Need a 3rd party review budget Package in groups such that investors can choose pieces to fund e.g.

phthalates Add donation section to website Will we charge fees to submit data? Fees do not align with an open source

site, and need to balance data quality. Fees may be possible for the “good” chemicals. If submission fees, how will this be managed?

The “do not use” chemicals, such as DEHP, may need funding Press release date: 3rd Dec

o Release (at Business-NGO forum): Dec 8th

o Potential items that will not be ready for the release: GreenScreen 2.0 (but we should do whatever we can to have this

ready by 3rd Dec) HP approval as a explicit sponsor

Green Screen wiki and organizational discussion 11 Aug 09Attendees: Kevin, Helen, Janet and Diane

Kevin's last full-time day with us was Fri 14th Aug, but will continue on as a volunteer on this project as he can (and continue to do GS work for us ~2 hours a week)

Janet agreed to be the wiki owner (but on vacation the next 2 weeks) - "wiki owner" in this case just means designated administrator according to the zoho people. Janet will offer some design adjustments, but everyone should feel free to change anything. I think any other ownership is a discussion for the business plan and liability issues.

Need to develop a Green Screen (GS) 2.0 technical group - Lauren, are you willing to lead this?

We will meet again on Tues Sept 1st at 11:00 am PST, and every two weeks until the end of the year (see separate meeting invite)

Goals for our meetings will consist of the following with owners: Improve the wiki (formatting, permissions) and get demo ready for Dec – Janet "get

demo ready for December" is certainly a joint effort. Janet can champion deadlines at our meetings, but available time will be driven by the TURI budget.

Add existing CPA data to wiki site - Mark Complete legal disclaimer on website - Mark Determine who owns the assessments (transfer to CPA) - Mark Tech committee progress updates - Lauren Prospectus - Janet/Ken Funding - Alex/Bev

Who manages the money? Rose Foundation? What about contacting others beside Venture need a review of the draft 3rd party review budget Package in groups such that investors can choose pieces to fund e.g. phthalates Add donation section to website

Will we charge fees to submit data? And how will this be managed? Timeline - Ken

8/11/09Attendees: Kevin, Helen, Diane, Janet

Agenda: Discussion on the wiki format/content

Notes: Janet did talk to some suppliers who expressed a lot of interest in having GS assessments easily available.

Helen suggested that we concentrate on getting the core (pro bono) chemicals done and get the funding/organization documents done in parallel. This will let us approach partners a bit sooner than doing these tasks linearly.

For the wiki page organization:Put the score and breakdown above the foldWe probably want to organize by common name rather than CAS number (for

page title). It’s less precise but more engaging/relevant to usersText formatting needs to be adjusted/cleaned up. Big blocks of text are generally

not encouraged. We are going to try italicizing/highlighting the relevant endpoints.We are probably going to move/eliminate the chemical structure picture—

probably put it on a right-side sidebar/tableAlso, figure out how to format the ToC a little better so it takes up less spaceOnce these edits are made, it’s open season for page formatting ideas. Janet will

make sure permissions are properly set. Everyone is invited to duplicate pages and play around in the sandbox

Next meeting: September 1st? + regular meetings every ~two weeksSuggestions for goals: We need to work towards the Dec 7 Biz-NGO meeting.Core chemicals (at least the CPA stuff—they will own that task), disclaimer (who owns the IP and the assessments?), wiki formatted properly, etc. Foundational documents/funding spreadsheet need to be updated and reviewed so they can be presented by the meeting date.Diane Fisher will take over meeting organization starting in SeptemberKevin’s new contact email: wingedone@gmail.com

8/04/09Attendees: Kevin, Diane, Janet, Helen

Agenda:Discussion of organization/funding model; prospectus, budget and FMDScheduling updates/changes

Notes:Prospectus draft by Lauren and Janet

Query: are we going to accept just Green Screen assessments? No—we want everything to be done according to spec. It’d be cost-ineffective otherwise. Data

management would be a lot easier if we make sure that the data is in proper GS format. We need to be clear that we’re hosting only GS assessments on the website.We’re also going to need to have specific data handling protocols posted on the wiki.

Funding: we’ll probably have to have matching funds to receive startup funds from outside organizations…

We’ll also probably have to put up a core list of chemicals pro bono as proof-of-concept, ~10-15 chemicals probably (for BFR replacements). This includes new materials, bad ones, and TBBPA. Launching point for white list (avoid deca issue). We can put this together in parallel while putting together the rest of our launching documents.

Protection of IP: chemicals are grouped by function (not material), and aggregate scores are by material (not broken down). We’ll have to generate a separate document explicitly outlining IP protection for this but we should also put a small section in the information flow section. There are multiple ways to approach disclosure security.

Review committee size: no larger than 3 paid reviewers—we can accept volunteers as well? Can go as low as 1 for particularly qualified individuals or “Super Experts.”

FMD: The ultimate aim here is for complete disclosure, although there could be issues with obtaining it (either for proprietary or logistical reasons). DfE has a good model for dealing with this.Funding again: we need to figure out throughput before estimating costs. Sunk costs are expected to be minimal (except for possibly writing up an NDA). We expect that there will be pretty good demand for this based on supplier response at HP. For a funding cost estimate model we should use the core chemical list we’ll put up and then use Janet’s cost breakdown.Also, starting to add the TV enclosures assessments up to the web. Janet and Kevin will try to get some pages up before the next meeting.

7/28/09: Kevin, Diane, Helen, Janet, Mark, Lauren…did I miss anyone?

Agenda:

Notes:Review of review process and prospectus

The prospectus does not have a provision for public comments, and whether or not there is an obligation to respond/incorporate them into the discussion

Public comments: we would like to see a public commenting period, but without obligation to respond/incorporate.Black box-discussions for RCs okay. Discussions will have to be documented/available within organization—need paper trailFunding fees: Review fees, aside from access/membership fees

Review fees could be set up with 3rd party ahead of time, so that the costs of review committee would be covered by fund-forwarding. Percentage or set (will have to be investigated). Remember, non-profit DOESN’T mean unprofitable!

Funding section needs more specificity—what kind of fiscal agents are we looking for? Once agreements with specific parties are worked out, they need to be explicitly named in document.Partnering requests will probably look like RFQ, w/out the actual request for quote. Needs lots of detail on services required. Minimum data set.

Also, 3rd party. Tox services, NSF international?Partnering agreements developed in parallel with funding seeking, with the idea that having a partner will make the funding model more compelling.May need QC step in review process? Qualifying unreviewed data/assessments?

~1-2 days of effort per chemical per person. Perhaps have individuals take lead on chemicals (advocate) per committee, with others taking only a small portion of time. Different ways of organizing this. Will probably use deep reviewer presenting judgment to RC. Deep review will probably need an extra day to review public comments.

As far as disagreements with 3rd parties goes, RC has the ability to just override. Need someone to manage information flow and take care of back-and-forth.

7/23/09: Kevin, Lauren, Ken, Mark, Janet

Agenda: Quick and relevant recap of any meetings/webinars recently attended Short discussion on wiki development: ideas and comments on current page

design/organization Discussion of organization/funding model Scheduling updates/changes

Notes:Meeting on Friday with HP went well. Discussed funding model and flow of

money/data to ensure cleanlinessWiki charges for assessment review, not to perform assessments?3rd party assessments for IP protection (and supplier assessments)Assessment results are open

Ken described his draft of the prospectus—based off the charter and the 7/14 callDiscussion of grouping of powers to resolve the differences between Lauren’s

process flow and Ken’s descriptions: Technical Review Board=overarching group, with RCs underneath. RCs provide recommendations to Board

Q: when is this transparent v blackbox? Where does the public fall?A: probably a public comment period after the initial (black box) review, then the RC goes back and re-verifies their decision. They will NOT comment on individual comments, but rather just summarize the discussion.

Governing Council-just managing/policy?How do you deal with differences of opinion between GC and RvB? Who has final say in ratings? For now, normal authority will lie with RB but GC could have power to give ultimate say. RB will decide if controversy exists and is warranted (i.e. not just because a concerned group dumps a bunch of data) and then will choose whether to forward it to GC, at which point it becomes a “policy” decision [need better word for this]. GC should probably use the “Super Expert” model.

Also, public commenting: RC posts reviews initially but opens it to public comment on wiki. Particular controversies will be noted/summarized. Public commenting will also give us the opportunity to find new research from interested parties.

Next Meeting: Move to 11 AM PDT, 2 PM EDT

7/14/2009Attendees: Kevin Hetherington, Helen Holder, Ken Geiser, Janet Clark

Agenda:Quick and relevant recap of any meetings/webinars recently attendedShort discussion on wiki--see Helen's email for more detailsDiscussion of organization/funding modelScheduling updates/changes; schedule next two meetings (check your calendars through the end of July!)

Meeting notes:Organization

Focus on developing the organization and process for now; funding is something that can be handled at a later date.

Perhaps using a fiscal agent? Governance board (council) structure

o Keep it small, initiallyo Sets policy, structure (goals), guides developmento Creates workgroups (review boards) focused around particular areas

(chemicals, functions etc) Needs an interface with the groups requesting assessments Assessments performed by external groups (if too much work for

internal group to do) Need IP protection Composition: primarily composed of scientists/experts Review assessments against set of criteria (TBC by review board,

initially)Funding model

Need to keep up propriety Membership-based model is a cleaner one, but has some issues with balance of

power

o “Senior” v “junior” partners based on contribution size, etc Review fees—how do you keep the money that pays the review board clean?

o “Firewalls” to reduce influence Need a partner that has a history/reputation for integrity when working with

industry—EDF, for starters

Action items:Prospective—take an “idea sheet” to a potential funder, rather than a full business plan.

Tech stuff can be done in parallel.Talk to Ted Smith on 17 July—feedback on review board composition, funding (costs, revenue raising, etc).

Next meetings:23rd at noon EDT (9 PDT)28th 2 PM EDT (11 PDT)4th at the same time11th at the same time

7/13/2009Attendees: Kevin Hetherington, Helen Holder, Lauren Heine

Agenda: Quick and relevant recap of any meetings/webinars recently attended Update on wiki hosting and site development: comments on Mindtouch (core

software now installed) Updates to draft charter, disclaimer Draft proposal to VCs for funding Scheduling updates/changes; schedule next two meetings

Notes:Discussion over the Mindtouch system and the current wiki solution: It looks like a lot of work to do any significant dynamic work through Mindtouch—while the system is very powerful it will require a dedicated support person(nel). Therefore for now we should concentrate on maturing the current site to get it ready for presentation. Once the GS is more broadly accepted and used then we can consider expanding (should be relatively easier compared to getting it set up in the first place).

Discussion about needs for website: Helen suggest avoiding re-duplicating any other information on the web. What would be ideal is focusing on the quality of the assessments rather than the quantity. That means (for now) assessing a small number of chemicals, and posting results on the wiki with click-through links for each endpoint, which link to the rationale/discussion over that rating. Each rating will be linked to the scoring criteria for the endpoint. Keep it simple—try to limit the data presented directly on the page so that casual users won’t be frightened away. Other bodies are doing a lot of the data collating work; therefore we can build on that work by linking to them if necessary.

Assessment process: How to we certify this process so it is recognized as valid and authoritative by all

concerned parties? Outside bodies do the reviews

o Lauren says that DfE only gives two other bodies the abilities to do reviews

DfE has final judgement on whether or not a review is official Something similar would be good

Ideally, we’d have something approaching “EPA-authorized” status, to keep politics to a minimum

Expert panels are useful only for a small number of chemicals (commitment issues)

Exposure/LCA tool to go in the comments suggestion? Mixture criteria—need to quantify GHS methodology for possible G2.0 inclusion

Discussion of funding/plan:

Costs associated with doing assessments, hosting, board/review members pay How do you keep the money clean, where does it come from? Who handles it? Lauren suggested foundation support, and possibly charging per-chemical (or for

status, as some bodies already do)o Issues with this funding model: some companies may balk at the price if

need to get a large # of assessments completedo Also, for companies looking for a sort of “green” certification (i.e.

DINCH)—may balk at funding comparison chemicals VC funding may not be possible given that self-sustaining (not profitable) is the

goal ~3 year funding? Need to show proof-of-concept/business plan first

o Aside from funding model, how will we be organized? IP issues: companies are paranoid about IP protection. From other initiatives,

assessments are funded then kept hidden (NOT ideal)o Will need some sort of disclosure agreement as part of the standard

contract for assessmentso Proposal: Hazard ratings for mixtures, rather than complete chemical lists

—easier to get past IP issues by masking chemical identities. GS 2.0 will have to come up with a good way of handling this (see above)

Action points: We need to make concrete progress on setting up the organization for promoting/developing/using the Green Screen. That means completing the board criteria, the business model, and looking at marketing the system to various interests.

Next meeting: 21 July at 11 AM PDT (2 PM EDT)Edit: 1st, meet on the 14th at 12:30 so missing attendees can review

6/19/2009: Attendees: Kevin Hetherington, Helen Holder, Alex McPherson, Mark Rossi, Bev Thorne, Janet Clark

Note: there was trouble accessing the Virtual Room, so the wiki tours were conducted over regular Internet browsers.

Janet gave presentation on BrainKeeper, Mindtouch wiki options: screencaps of the former were posted on Wetpaint site. Mindtouch was enthusiastically received, although concerns were raised about cost and resources for development. The core software is free, but it has to be managed which will require money whichever way it’s done.

Kevin presented Zoho wiki. This was received as an adequate solution for now.

It was decided that for now, the demo site would be built on Zoho (owned by Janet) but not developed too deeply. Everyone is encouraged to play with the site to familiarize themselves with the system. Once we’ve figured out how to use MindTouch, we’ll migrate to that as appropriate.Update: there is a two-week demo for Mindtouch at: http://turi01.snjsca01.dekiondemand.com; login information was provided in the email Janet sent out to the list. Email Janet for more details/questions.

Mark mentioned that the technical committee will be interested in seeing how the site plays out.

Next meeting is scheduled for July 7th at 3:30 PM EDT. The agenda will be (mostly) the same since we didn’t get to most of the items this time.