1 / 7

NGI Policy Workshop Discussion on the Questionnaire responses

NGI Policy Workshop Discussion on the Questionnaire responses. Fotis Karayannis GRNET EGEE'06 Conference 26 September 2006, Geneva, Switzerland. Observations and Issues. General Has it reached the right recipient? Some remarked on the selection procedure

elton-vincent
Download Presentation

NGI Policy Workshop Discussion on the Questionnaire responses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NGI Policy WorkshopDiscussion on the Questionnaire responses Fotis Karayannis GRNET EGEE'06 Conference 26 September 2006, Geneva, Switzerland

  2. Observations and Issues • General • Has it reached the right recipient? • Some remarked on the selection procedure • Many countries did answer the questionnaire! • Got answers for both the mandatory and optional parts EGEE-II NA5 NGI Policy Workshop – CICG, 2006-09-26

  3. Observations and Issues (II) • NGI related • Loose definition of NGI? • 22 out of 26 (~ 85%) declared having an NGI • Loose definition of Government recognition? • 17 out of 22 (77%) declared Government support • 50% of NGIs are funded national projects (obviously with Governmental support…) • While only 1 separate legal entity.. • Small number of applications supported by each NGI • Large variety of application areas EGEE-II NA5 NGI Policy Workshop – CICG, 2006-09-26

  4. Observations and Issues (III) • EGI related • EGI most important functions: • Representation at international level  (13+8) • Coordination of infrastructure operations  (12+9) • M/w testing and validation  (10+11) • Then…: • Representation of European Grid efforts on standards bodies (10+8) • Coordination of dissemination and training efforts (8+10) • Less important.. • Managed resource centres that can provide initial resources for new user communities (6+9) • Coordination of user and application support (6+8) • Also 6 “Should not be done by EGI” EGEE-II NA5 NGI Policy Workshop – CICG, 2006-09-26

  5. Observations and Issues (IV) • Other EGI functions proposed: • Relationship with other major e-Infrastructures stakeholders (GEANT/DANTE/NRENs and HPC centres) • Policy issues - Resource sharing mechanisms • Interoperability work including m/w EGEE-II NA5 NGI Policy Workshop – CICG, 2006-09-26

  6. Observations and Issues (V) • Who should be the EGI stakeholders? • NGIs only? • Others? • How about Industry? • Who should be the funding agencies? • National funding agencies • EC • Others (e.g. NRENs)? • How about Industry? EGEE-II NA5 NGI Policy Workshop – CICG, 2006-09-26

  7. Observations and Issues (VI) • All besides one NGI are prepared to join EGI • NGI (initially) combined with other bodies • 6 NRENs (directly or indirectly) • 3 Supercomputing centres? • No sustainable funding seems to be the case for the majority of the NGIs EGEE-II NA5 NGI Policy Workshop – CICG, 2006-09-26

More Related