1. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Geographic Issues Study Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.& Nikos Vogiatzis for the EARNEST/GEANT2 Foresight Study http://www.terena.org/activities/earnest/geog.html http://www.terena.org/activities/earnest/geog.html Amsterdam, 8 May 2007

2. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Presentation Topics The DD in the REN context A Framework for measuring the DD in REN The RENDDI structure Key Findings and Future Work

3. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 GIS main Goal … to come up with an enhanced, concrete and structured measuring approach that will lead to a deeper understanding and addressing of the Digital Divide (DD) challenges in the Research & Education Networking context. Quantify the Digital Divide / Opportunity Quantify the need for improved network performance

4. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Definition of the RENDD “ The uneven distribution, difference or gap in regular and effective access to and usage of digital resources and technologies ” … between scientists, researchers, students, etc* attached to research and education networks … due to infrastructural, social, economic, educational, regulatory and other causes, including but not limited to, unavailability of, difficulty in accessing, unawareness of the availability and/or capabilities of, lack of understanding of how to access and/or use such digital resources and technologies. * Conclusions should be able to be deducted for organizations, campuses, and geographic areas attached to research and education networks.

5. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Why a solid and robust Framework? Stakeholders need information, benchmarks and analysis to evaluate what has been achieved, as well as what is achievable in the future in each member state and neighboring countries for appropriate policy interventions to take place. “it is part of the vision of the European Research Area that researchers throughout Europe, irrespective of location, will be able to contribute fully to its high-quality research activities. This represents equality of opportunity for researchers, and increasingly, advanced research networks such as GÉANT and the NRENs are playing a key role in achieving this.” The SERENATE study

6. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 The International Experience A composite index 8-48 Indicators convoluted Clustered in 3- 6 sub-indexes Assess progress in creating digital opportunity and bridging the DD Ability to participate in and benefit from ICT developments

7. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Digital Opportunity Index (2005) (Source: ITU/UNCTDA/KADO)

8. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Digital Access Index (2003) ( Source : ITU)

9. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Networked Readiness Index (2007) (Source: WEF/Insead)

10. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 The RENDDI Quantification Framework – Covers a large number of countries – Modular structure can be grouped in logical classifications/clusters/categories/areas with special interest (e.g. enabling factors/opportunity, infrastructure, usage, etc) – Straightforward methodology Raw ingredients are separate indicators that can be measured relatively easily. Can be convoluted into a single Index (RENDDI) – Objective criteria and measurable indicators Data collected via high-quality sources, e.g. the Compendium or other databases from the ITU, WorldBank, EuroStat, etc, and processed via robust statistical methods. – Standardized indicators Allows for consistent and periodical measurements and assessments Permits comparisons of the Digital Divide evolution (whether it is diminishing and at what speed)—both changes in absolute scores, as well as changes in rankings. – Captures the causes as well as the effects of the Digital Divide exposing both the readiness as well as the intensity of use of digital resources and technologies

11. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Structure Sub-Index Cluster Answers what? Infrastructure Usage Affordability Knowledge Quality Network capacity Resources utilization Financial capacity General infrastructure landscape Policy environment Human capacity Human output Network performance How capable is my network? How much my network is used? Can I build a good network? How robust is my network? Can people build and use my network? How to answer?

12. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Structure Infrastructure Sub-Index CategorySub-category Infrastructure Sub-IndexHow to construct the Sub-Index? Access network capacity External connectivity capacity Core network capacity N e t w o r k c a p a c i t y

13. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Structure Sub-Indexes CategorySub-category Infrastructure Usage Affordability Knowledge Quality External connectivity capacity Core network capacity Access network capacity IP outgoing trafficIP incoming traffic GDP Expenditure on educationExpenditure on R&D LiteracySchool enrolmentPatentsResearchers in R&D Availability NREN budget Sub-IndexHow to construct the Sub-Indexes? Internet tariffInternational Internet bandw.Internet usersBroadband users Regulatory situation Unreachability LossesJitter Throughput

14. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Input Infrastructure Index (Source: TERENA compendium)

15. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Structure Infrastructure Index CategorySub-category Infrastructure Core network size per user Core network capacity per user Sub-IndexSub-Sub-Index External connectivity with peerings per user Core network size per sq km Access network capacity per user External connectivity without peerings per user N e t w o r k c a p a c i t y The NREN potential users are 7.5% of the population

16. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Structure Infrastructure Index (cont’d) CategorySub-category Infrastructure Index Core network size Index1 Core network capacity Index Sub-IndexSub-Sub-Index External connectivity with peerings Index Core network size Index2 Access network capacity Index NREN External Connectivity Index NREN Core Network Connectivity Index NREN Access Network Connectivity Index External connectivity without peerings Index 67% 33% 30% 10% 60% 100% 33%

17. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 REN Infrastructure Index (2006) Average kbps per NREN user Netherlands: (internat. connections) 84,18kbps (access network): 71,03kbps Iceland: (internat. connections) 59,18kbps (access network): 1.152,28kbps Slovakia: (internat. connections) 78,45kbps (access network): 186,61kbps Russia: (internat. connections) 0,27kbps (access network): 1,55kbps

18. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI Structure User-centric Sub-Indexes CategorySub-category Infrastructure Index Usage Index Affordability Index Knowledge Index Quality Index Core network size per user Core network capacity per user IP outgoing traffic per userIP incoming traffic per user GDP per capitaExpenditure on education % of GDP Expenditure on R&D % Adult LiteracySchool enrolmentPatents per capita Researchers per capita NREN budget % Sub-IndexSub-Sub-Index Internet tariff % International Internet bandw.per capita Internet users per capita Broadband users pc Regulatory situation External connectivity without peerings per user External connectivity with peerings per userCore network size per sq km Access network capacity per user 50% 20% 10% Availability Unreachability LossesJitter Throughput

19. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI (2006) - top 30 Iceland Netherlands Sweden Germany France Israel Slovenia Finland Denmark

20. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI (2006) - next 30

21. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI (2006)

22. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI vs other related Indices Iceland Netherlands Sweden Norway Slovakia Denmark Czech Hungary Latvia

23. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 RENDDI vs … Luxembourg Latvia Armenia Iceland Netherlands

24. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Other results…

25. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 The RENDDI as a policy tool Ranking and comparing countries on the 5 main sub-indices, is probably more useful than on the main RENDDI –The sub-indices can allow for specific policy recommendations and concrete action plans in order to address low-ranked attributes. –A country’s overall RENDDI score can be used to benchmark the performance on the main sub-indices in order to produce a specific diagnosis on intra-indicators correlations and deviations. Time evolution (trend) of RENDDI and its sub-indices is significantly more meaningful than a static snapshot –This requires dedicated resources, commitment, and consistency, in order to implement a data collection, validation, and analysis (both offline and online) process that caries over a long period of time (e.g. min 3-5 years) TERENA Compendium is widely accepted by the NREN community as a reference point of data gathering, however, a data validation mechanism is required in order to ensure data correctness as much as possible –A data validation mechanism will also encourage cooperation and coordination among the NREN, Academia, Ministries, and other stakeholders in order to produce a cohesive national policy and consensus. –The RENDDI offers up to a point that validation mechanism

26. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 The RENDDI as a policy tool The RENDDI provide R&E policymakers a policy tool –A comprehensive statistical framework to monitor the RENDD –A frame of reference for comparisons over time and between regions –A benchmark for monitoring internal disparities in REN Infrastructure, Usage, Affordability, Knowledge and Quality based on classificatory variables of interest to the R&E community –A Tool to evaluate the impact of REN policies

27. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Future Work Further confirm the data in the databases and evaluate further the convolution methods (sensitivity analysis, etc) -> Compare “Apples with Apples” Identify data for the Quality Index (pinger) “Run” the Index again for 2007 Present the findings to the Stakeholders: –The National Research and Education Networks –The management of research institutes, universities and other organisations that could benefit from research and education networks –Governments and research funding bodies for the development of future strategies –The European Commission, which is sponsoring the study and values the Digital Divide issue high in its policy agenda –The members of the European Parliament

28. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Final outcome REN-DD Policy Workshop & White Paper –A declaration of solidarity for closing the REN-DD –To be endorsed and co-signed by EC EP NREN directors National and EU Policy Makers et al. –Commit to a “ REN-DD Action Plan: 2007-2013 ” based on GIS findings and recommendations.

29. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Acknowledgements TERENA EARNEST panel Geographic Issues Study Advisory Board Institute of Computer and Communications Systems Pinger ITU, WorldBank, WEF, OECD Please send your comments to j.sanchez@htci.gr

30. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 GIS Target Areas GN2 Austria (ACOnet) Belgium (BELNET) Bulgaria (BREN) Croatia (CARNet) Cyprus (CYNET) Czech Republic (CESNET) Denmark (UNI-C) Estonia (EENet) Finland (FUNET) France (RENATER) Germany (DFN) Greece (GRNET) Hungary (HUNGARNET) Iceland (RHnet) Ireland (HEAnet) Israel (IUCC) Italy (GARR) GN2 Observers & SEEREN Serbia (AMRES) FYR of Macedonia (MARNet) SEEREN Albania (ANA) Montenegro (MREN) Bosnia & Herzegovina (BIHARNET) PORTA OPTICA Belarus (BASNET) Moldova (RENAM) Ukraine (URAN) Azerbaijan (AzRENA) Georgia (GRENA) Armenia (ASNET) Latvia (LATNET) Lithuania (LITNET) Luxembourg (RESTENA) Malta (CSC) Netherlands (SURFnet) Norway (UNINETT) Poland (PIONIER) Portugal (FCCN) Romania (RoEduNet) Russia (RBNET/RUNNET) Slovakia (SANET) Slovenia (ARNES) Spain (RedIRIS) Sweden (SUNET) Switzerland (SWITCH) Turkey (ULAKBIM) United Kingdom (UKERNA) EUMEDCONNECT Algeria (ARN) Egypt (EUN) Jordan (JUNET) Lebanon (CNRS) Libya Morocco (CNCPSRT) Palestine (PADI2) Syria (HIAST) Tunisia (MRST) OCASSION Kazakhstan (KazRENA) Kyrgyzstan (KRENA- AKNET) Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan (UzSciNet)

31. The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Defining the Digital Divide “The origins of the Digital Divide can be dated quite precisely to May 24, 1844, when the first electronic telegraph route was opened between Washington D.C. and Baltimore, and when Samuel Morse sent the historic first message “What hath God wrought?” That first link privileged the two end-points of the circuit, but every other point on the globe suddenly found itself on the wrong side of a newly-opened Digital Divide. However, by the time the original telegraph circuit was extended to reach Philadelphia and New York, the Digital Divide was already starting to be reduced.”