GA Meeting 31
11-12 June 2009
Málaga, Spain
John DYER
TERENA
[email protected]
The Case for NRENs
Why develop this paper?
› NRENs ask
› Some NRENs have developed some material
› Experience from helping NRENs in the GN2NA4 activity
› Provide a source document for all our
members
› To articulate “THE CASE FOR NRENs”
Slide 2
Document Development Process
› first version May 2008
›
›
›
›
presented at TF-MSP/PR May
TEC
Community feedback
revision
› Revised versions September/October 2009
›
›
›
›
Presented TF-MSP/PR Sept 08
TEC
Community feedback
Revisions
› Released version January 2009
› Distributed to GA
› Feedback
› Widely circulated and well received
› Acknowledgements
› NREN Staff, TF-MSP/PR, TEC & GA members
› Mike Norris, Andrew Cormack, Donald Clark
Slide 3
Suggestions for improvements
› Even if an NREN operates the network alone the NREN
has to buy all equipment and all links from the market
(normally using public tender procedures as THE
instrument for acting on the market). No competition
with the market they are rather using the market and
its opportunities
› good if you could substantiate the claim. "NRENs are
still the source of much Internet innovation, much of
which will spill-over into the commercial Internet for
the benefit of society in general
› stress further the "Club NREN" model (i.e. focusing on
those services that are done better together than
separately).
Slide 4
Other Responses
› The paper is nice to read and all is argued well (EU)
› Nice work -- Thanks for the great report (US)
› Thanks to TERENA for completing this (US)
› This is really a great work. (CA)
› Really nice, thanks a lot for it! It is very useful (LA)
› The paper is the first thing I have read while doing
this research which spelled out the issues in plain
English simply and clearly. (AUS)
Slide 5
Contents of the paper
› Introduction
› The European NREN Model
› NREN Characteristics and Service
› Demanding users, advanced services
› Not satisfied by commercial ISP offerings
› Why develop explicit justification for NRENs
› Issues & Arguments
› Conclusions
Slide 6
Why is it reasonable to develop explicit
justification for NRENs?
› NRENs are largely consumers of public money
› Must be open and accountable
› Need to Differentiate NREN from Commercial ISPs
operating in parallel serving different needs
› Not in competition with commercial ISPs
› Demonstrate the value and benefits of NRENs
› If NRENs can’t do this their existence is . . . . .
rightly in question
Slide 7
What is the need for NRENs when
commercial ISPs exist?
› Affordable access to necessary facilities
› Commercial ISPs do not satisfy the requirements of
our demanding users at an economically justifiable
price.
› “The NREN Club" model
› NRENs have a history of collaborating globally on
finding solutions in a way that would be difficult for
commercial ISPs.
› Services can be developed better jointly
› SCS and now TCS
› Pan-European multi-domain collaboration
› Common approaches to things like QoS
Slide 8
The Question of Funding
Non-User
/Client
Funding
Graph 6.4.1 Income Sources, EU/EFTA Countries
100%
80%
60%
40%
User/Client
Funding
20%
National government and public bodies
EU
Iceland
Italy
Denmark
Germany
Austria
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Netherlands
Switzerland
Latvia
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Ireland
Belgium
Hungary
Luxembourg
France
Slovakia
Users/Clients
United Kingdom
Cyprus
Estonia
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Romania
Greece
Lithuania
0%
Other sources
› A complete spectrum exists in Europe:
100% user-client funding
100% non-user-client
and . . . . . . . . . . everything in between
Slide 9
DATA SOURCE: TERENA COMPENDIUM 2008
Historical Perspectives on Central Funding
› Ptolemaic Dynasty – 300BC
› BACONIAN – 1605
› ADAM SMITH - 1776
› OECD – 2003
private funding should drive research
› Experiences of 2008-2009
Slide 10
Why is there a need for
central/government funding of NRENs?
New infrastructure investments
~ 5 years
Funding
Innovation & Development
Production services
CENTRAL
funding
USER
funding
Time
› Users have short term investment horizons
› Governments can invest in long term innovation
› The most sustainable is probably a hybrid
Slide 11
Developed from work by Donald Clark, REANNZ
The NRENs Relationship with the ISP
Market
› NRENs serve a closed user group of
advanced users
› NRENs buy infrastructure in the commercial
market.
› NRENs can use the competitive market to
the best advantage just as any other
purchaser
› Collaboration between NRENs and
Commercial ISPs is encouraged and will
result in mutual benefits
Slide 12
The Regulatory Position of NRENs
› NRENs serve a well bounded community
› CLOSED USER GROUP
› Not in the business of providing pubic access
› NOT A PUBLIC NETWORK
› NRENs should adopt best industry practice
› Not be compelled to register as a public network
› Detracts from the innovative and pioneering
mission of NRENs
Slide 13
Data Retention Directive
› European Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC
› 2007 Technical Perspective from University of Vienna
› Would require re-engineering of networks
› Re-introduce a single point of failure
› Sub-optimal
› Costs uncertain, but likely to be high
› Huge administrative and financial burden
Slide 14
Conclusions
› NRENs occupy a special position in the datacommunications sector
› They are innovative and pioneering
› They are not-for-profit - and should remain so
› They contribute to national and European
development
› Recognized as a National & European Asset
› Ultimately benefit industry and society generally
Slide 15
A Source Document for NRENs

http://www.terena.org/publications/
Slide 16