1 / 18

SERENATE Final Session Structure

SERENATE Final Session Structure. Chair: Ian Butterworth. Overall. General Discussion (14.00-14.45) Give people a chance to pass to everyone here what they regard as key messages for the SERENATE project Plans for follow-up actions (14.45-14.55) Coming workshops

heba
Download Presentation

SERENATE Final Session Structure

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. SERENATEFinal Session Structure Chair: Ian Butterworth

  2. Overall • General Discussion (14.00-14.45) • Give people a chance to pass to everyone here what they regard as key messages for the SERENATE project • Plans for follow-up actions (14.45-14.55) • Coming workshops • Are there any issues which specific people (or one or more NRENs) would agree to address and write up? • Web site discussion groups?? • Summary of the outcome (14.55-15.30) • Very personal review • Chance for comments

  3. General Discussion • General Discussion • Give people a chance to pass to everyone here what they regard as key messages for the SERENATE project

  4. Plans for follow-up actions • Coming workshops • Operators’ views on infrastructure status and evolution (8 Nov 2002, Amsterdam) • Research user needs and priorities (17-19 Jan 2003, Montpellier) • Possible models for the future (4-5 Feb 2003, Noordwijkerhout??) • Final workshop (~May-June 2003) • Work packages • Not just a talking shop • Are there any issues which specific people (or one or more NRENs) would agree to address and write up? • Case studies on “new” communities • Pros (& cons?) of NRENs per se

  5. Summary of the outcome • Clearly very personal impressions • Personal thanks to the speakers, and to the participants • I feel the need to go away and read the mass of information that we have been presented with, and try to digest it • Will put all presentations onto the SERENATE Web site as soon as possible

  6. STRONG GENERAL IMPRESSIONS

  7. From hardware to services • Networking is (still) evolving FAST • And going more into the mainline of ICT • It’s not so much just getting “hardware connectivity” to the researcher’s desk, but it’s increasingly about delivering a set of services needed by researchers (and others) Information access, collaborative tools, “disciplinary grids” are what the user wants. AAA and Web/Grid services will be part of the delivery mechanism

  8. NRENs as a resource • Lots of expertise • Growing understanding by government of the importance of ICT as a driver for economic prosperity • Growing understanding by government of the value of their NREN expertise • Increasing requests to capitalise on that expertise

  9. Europe (subsidiarity etc.) • What should SERENATE try to generate • Recommendations? • Guidelines? • Basically we all have to try to work by persuasion

  10. PER BREAK-OUT GROUP

  11. Technology • We certainly need to try to find a coherent approach to the “steadily increasing amplitude” of optical networking • I retained that it’s going to take some time • But it seems a powerful wave • What do we mean by a “hybrid solution”? • Interaction with “ubiquity” is important • I guess that we need a model where communities with special needs (de Laat Type C) can inject appropriate funds into a common (hybrid) infrastructure

  12. Economics • Study on regulation • Study on costs • We do need a clear understanding of any regulatory barriers that we could face in deploying pan-European fibre • I personally guess that it does not matter whether you actually own fibre, or merely lease it on a long-term basis, or maybe even lease wavelengths. We should try to quantify this.

  13. Geography • Obviously needs interaction with the politicians • But we had better have our ideas rather clear first • It seems to me that there may be a conflict between two fundamental European concepts:- • the “ERA view” – offer equality of research opportunities across the continent • “subsidiarity” – the EU only helps with funding at the pan-European level, not nationally or on the campus • In FP5 we “integrated” the present accession countries into GÉANT. I don’t see any similar target as part of FP6.

  14. “New” user communities • I found the discussion very interesting • Hard to see what the recommendations might be – situation is very different in each country • Compendium should develop a set of questions around this • And we should think about whether “eEurope” style benchmarks could be a useful output of SERENATE • Schools • Libraries • Research hospitals • Healthcare • Etc

  15. Research User Needs • ??? • As much as they can get (and their govts can afford) • AAA • Working grids • Ability to inject funds for Type C (few to few) connections as part of the common infrastructure

  16. The need for NRENs • Extreme economic liberals sometimes wonder why we need NRENs • They see them as some sort of competition for ISPs • If I ever needed convincing that this is a false argument then this meeting convinced me. • I would like the argument written up well

  17. The need for politics and funding • We probably are going to have to make sure that we keep a dialogue with the politicians • Both MEPs and national ones • And with our funding agencies

  18. Reactions and Discussions • I surely forgot something? • And got something the wrong way around

More Related