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

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings 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 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings 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? 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

Information About ERIC 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings Benefits of the model 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings Timescale 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings Scope 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings Two-tier model 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings Major benefits for EGI 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

Joint e-Infrastructure ERIC 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

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) 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings Correlation of questions 2 and 7 (Forming EGI ERIC and Having a joint ERIC) 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings 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. 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings 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? 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings 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) 14.4.2011 EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings