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

2. 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
EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

3. 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?
EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. 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.
EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

14. 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?
EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings

15. 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)
EGI UF Vilnius/EGI Policy & EGI Council meetings