ERIC Survey Results

1. ERIC Survey Results Luděk Matyska CESNET Ludek.Matyska@cesnet.cz

2. Overview • A simple questionnaire related to ERIC prepared • Presented to NGIs in March 2011 • Got 18 responses with weight 656 from 1203 votes (54%) • No straightforward interpretation of results possible, but still some trends are present EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

3. Questions • Do you feel to have enough information about the ERIC and implications of its creation? If No - what more information do you need? • Do you see sufficient benefits in the ERIC model so that your NGIs interested in EGI reaching the ERIC status? • In what timescale do you feel it right to prepare an ERIC application for EGI? • What scope would you envision for EGI ERIC? • An ERIC covering (part of) the infrastructure, i.e. including the equipment investment, with (part of) NGI becoming a national branch of such an ERIC • A lightweight ERIC (i.e. just a coordination role), without any direct responsibility over the equipment (i.e., the physical infrastructure) • Probably not all NGI and EIRO members will be willing/able to join a Grid ERIC due to some national issues or restrictions. Is it acceptable for you (your NGI) to start with only a subset of EG Council members being ERIC partners? With other partners joining as associated members. This implies e.g. a two-tier model (like PRACE hosting and associated partners model). • What do you see as major benefits for implementing the ERIC model for grid resources? Tick all that apply. • Financial stability and sustainability  • International visibility • National visibility • Recognition and acceptance at the national governmental level • Would a combined e-Infrastructure ERIC (i.e. a single application potentially in conjunction with PRACE, NRENs, an EU data providers) improve the case nationally for an ERIC? EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

4. Information About ERIC EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

5. Benefits of the model EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

6. Timescale EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

7. Scope EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

8. Two-tier model EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

9. Major benefits for EGI EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

10. Joint e-Infrastructure ERIC EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

11. Comments can be interesting, too • On Benefits of the model: • Political recognition aspect is the major issue that must be resolved now or in near future to ensure EGI consortium sustainability • Clearly, moving to an ERIC has a cost but it will give visibility to EGI at ministry levels and set EGI in the European landscape in a long term. • There is nothing wrong with the current legal entity. Besides: we have more important matters to solve. • On Combined e-Infrastructure ERIC • Definitely yes. It will be advantageous to show to the national funding bodies that there is a clear vision and collaboration on European eInfrastructure that includes high-end computing, distributed computing, data, etc. • In fact, I wouldn't advise EGI.eu to go through the ERIC-trouble on its own. • We don’t believe EGI has sufficient critical mass to make an ERIC on its own. - The boundaries between networking/grids/supercomputing are blurring - It would provide a way of reducing the admin & bureaucracy (do we really need DANTE, EGI.eu and PRACE Ltd each with their own admin, finance, mgmt. etc.) - It would not link the ERIC to any particular technology or service organisation (other than national federations) • The discussion would be overwhelmingly complicated • Compare to the recommendation to have just a lightweight EGI ERIC (Question 4) EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

12. Correlation of questions 2 and 7 (Forming EGI ERIC and Having a joint ERIC) EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

13. Interpreted results • Significant interest in having joint e-Infrastructure ERIC (64% of votes) • However, very significant interest in having only lightweight ERIC (82% of votes) • Year 2013 considered as appropriate for setting up the ERIC • Fits reasonably well with the EGI InSPIRE time frame • Reasonable agreement on using ERIC to increase national (and international) visibility and acceptance and provide route to better financial stability and sustainability. EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

14. Further questions • Are the analysis results acceptable for the EGI Council? • Is there support for a follow up action with other e-Infrastructures (esp. DANTE/NRENs and PRACE)? • Should EGI (EGI.eu?) start discussion with EC about the open questions related to the ERIC implementation? • If the 2013 deadline is reasonable, should we setup some task force to start preparing an outline for the bidding proposal? • What about a small Support Action project to deal with such a preparation? EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

15. List of countries • Not responded • Italy • Germany • Bulgaria • Cyprus • Denmark • Estonia • Hungary • Ireland • Lithuania • Latvia • Portugal • Romania • Slovenia • Slovakia • Sweden • Responded • France • UK • Spain • The Netherlands • Norway • Switzerland • Poland • Belgium • Turkey • Greece • Finland • Israel (only responded on first question) • Czech • Croatia • CERN • Luxembourg (only responded on first question) • Serbia • Montenegro • Macedonia • Moldova (no votes, comments only) EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings