The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Geographic Issues Study Background for discussion J.-A. Sanchez-P., N. Vogiatzis Berlin, 23.05.2006

The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

Geographic Issues StudyBackground for discussion

J.-A. Sanchez-P., N. Vogiatzis

Berlin, 23.05.2006


EARNEST Aim

“EARNEST is a strategic study aiming to provide input on how electronic network services for research and education in Europe should evolve over the next 5-10 years if they are to stay at the forefront of worldwide development.


Geographic Issues Study Contractual Commitment

• “Many geographic issues are related to the Digital Divide in research networking between different countries in and around Europe.

• The Digital Divide has been investigated by SERENATE, but it is good to give a new overview of the situation and to update and re-emphasize the political messages from SERENATE. A more in-depth study of the real situation may reveal substantial differences from earlier observations.

• There are sometimes also digital divide issues inside an otherwise well-developed country. These should be investigated more in EARNEST, and be illustrated by some case studies. The issues related to regional networks may play a role here.

• Looking at geographic issues on a world-wide scale, there is the much larger digital divide between the advanced part of the world (Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific) and the developing countries in, for example, Africa. It is not within the remit of EARNEST to look into the opportunities for development of research networks in Africa or southern Asia.”


Target Group

• The results of the study will be of interest to – the European Commission, who are funding the study, – National governments and– Research funding bodies for the development of future

strategies, – the management of research institutes, – universities and – other organisations that could benefit from research and

education networks, – and by research network organisations.”


Background of GIS

• Reports on geographic issues related to digital divide in R&E networking between countries and regions in and around Europe:– SERENATE– NA4/GN2– TERENA Compendium. Figures e.g. in TERENA Compendium,

could be too optimistic and conceal digital-divide issues even in an otherwise well-developed area

– reports on NREN geographic issues (e.g. Varna Statement, Report from the International Workshop on African Research & Education Networking) stress the need for specific R&E strategy/roadmap

– EC-sponsored regional projects (e.g. SEEREN, EUMEDCONNECT, PORTA OPTICA, etc) aiming to lessen the digital divide, have revealed in several occasions a lack of national/regional priorities on R&E networking


Geographic Issues Study Target Areas

GN2

• Austria (ACOnet) • Belgium (BELNET) • Bulgaria (IST

Foundation) • Croatia (CARNet) • Cyprus (CYNET) • Czech Republic

(CESNET) • Denmark (UNI-C) • Estonia (EENet) • Finland (FUNET) • France (RENATER) • Germany (DFN) • Greece (GRNET) • Hungary

(NIIF/HUNGARNET) • Iceland (RHnet) • Ireland (HEAnet) • Israel (IUCC) • Italy (GARR)

GN2 Observers & SEEREN

• Serbia (AMREJ) • Macedonia, FYR of

(MARNet)

SEEREN

• Albania• Bosnia and

Herzegovina • Montenegro

PORTA OPTICA

• Belarus (BASNET) • Moldova (RENAM) • Ukraine (URAN)• Azerbaijan (AzRENA) • Georgia (GRENA) • Armenia

• Latvia (LATNET) • Lithuania (LITNET) • Luxembourg (RESTENA)

• Malta (CSC) • Netherlands (SURFnet) • Norway (UNINETT) • Poland (PIONIER) • Portugal (FCCN) • Romania (RoEduNet) • Slovak Republic

(SANET) • Slovenia (ARNES) • Spain (RedIRIS) • Sweden (SUNET) • Switzerland (SWITCH) • Turkey (ULAKBIM) • United Kingdom

(UKERNA) • Russian Federation

EUMEDCONNECT

• Algeria (CERIST) • Egypt (EUN) • Jordan• Lebanon (CNRS) • Morocco (MARWAN) • Syria (SHERN) • Tunisia

OTHER (?)• Kazakhstan (KazRENA) • Kyrgyz Rep. (KRENA-

AKNET) • Uzbekistan (UzSciNet)

Concentrate on extended Europe (Reached by the compendium, GN2 NRENs, GN2 observers, SEEREN, EUMEDCONNECT, PORTA OPTICA)


Geographic Issues Study Main Issue 1

• Accurate monitoring/benchmarking of the state of the digital divide between research and education communities in Europe

– Filter out any existing R&E index that may be inadequate and/or misleading in assessing digital divide in R&E networking.

– Complement current list of R&E indicators with factors that accurately reflect and reveal digital divide in a region.

– “applying” and “interpreting” indicators is critical• country GDP or GNI vs. GDP or GNI per capita • country Connectivity (bps) vs. Connectivity per capita or per

researcher/student• Theoretical bandwidth capacity vs. actual bandwidth utilization vs.

application-specific bandwidth utilization• research infrastructure capabilities (e.g. network connectivity) vs.

research results indicators (e.g. papers, Ph.Ds., scientific books, patents, etc.)

• may yield significantly different results and evaluations for the level of digital divide for a certain region.


Examples from the Compendium






Proposal for a First Level Analysis (example1)


Proposal for a First Level Analysis (example 2)


Getting into country details?


Geographic Issues Study Main Issue 2

• Identification of “real” issues affecting sustainability of NRENs

– need for a “business” case that justifies the “business” (scientific/research/educational) need for investing in R&E networking in a certain geographic region.

– lack of clear, visible benefits and results on what and how will R&E benefit a region, affects most funding/investment/policy priorities

• “inherent” digital divide factors are the most difficult to “cure”– need for R&E “champions” that possess the necessary technological

competence and managerial vision, who will draft one or more “Business Case(s) for R&E networking”

• totally customized to the respective national / regional level• Always taking into account appropriate policies, results visibility,

and public impact. • understanding that "real problems" need to be "really quantified"

– e.g. a specific user group suffering tangible and quantified "damage" as a result of a digital divide in R&E


NREN Sustainability

• Sustainability = technological competence + managerial vision + appropriate policies + public awareness

• Sustainable NREN = Appropriate with respect to human resources and technology, nationally based, internationally oriented, inclusive not exclusive, that ‘educated’ politicians on your work and public recognition.




Proposal to add some more parameters… (example)


For brainstorming…

• Geographic Issues = Digital Divide?• Which are the target areas?• Definition of Digital Divide in the NREN context?

• Which are the best measures in this context?• Which are the real issues affecting the Digital

Divide and thus their Sustainability?

• Type of results expected?• Successful completion?


Thank You!


Digital Divide in "Greenfield" NREN Landscape

• There is a rapidly evolving European NREN landscape as research networking embraces new countries and regions that are however still hampered by less-developed and/or less-deregulated telecommunication markets. – e.g. an open, competitive market is directly related to

pricing and the chance of lagging NRENs to gain access to (dark) fibre / more bandwidth.

• Issues:– How to best document the current status?– Which incentives can be provided to provide/obtain

information from greenfield regions? – Which policies and strategies can be suggested to

address the issue of the digital divide in "greenfield" regions in a more sustainable way?


Digital Divide in "Incumbent" NREN Landscape

• Usually digital divide is believed to be present in less-resourced European and neighbouring regions, yet even in otherwise well-developed areas, there can be various levels of digital divide.– e.g. services and/or capacities that are “officially”

reported may not always work or may not always work as they should or may not always reach all locations and users that they are supposed to reach.

• Issues:– How to verify already reported figures in the

Compendium or other reports/sources of data? – Which incentives could be offered in order to gain more

accurate data? – What level of research networking "magnification"

should one apply within the national boundaries (e.g. WAN/MAN/LAN)?


Misc Open Issues (1)

• "top-down" vs. "bottom-up”– is EARNEST able to go in-depth and derive results "top-

down" via a centralised co-ordination?– do we need many "sub-EARNESTs", each one at a

national -or even more localized- level?

• Good vs. Bad practices– is there one or more European country(ies) that could

serve as good example(s) / best practice(s) (i.e., role model(s) for others) on how to address and overcome digital-divide issues?

– are there other not-so-good examples / bad practices / things to avoid and learn from?


Misc Open Issues (2)

• EU FP impact– How to measure the effectiveness and impact of EU

Framework Programmes in laying out and implementing policies for reducing digital-divide?

– Has EC financial support been too much / too little / just right? – Has EC policy “interventions” been too scarce / too frequent /

just right? – a "lessons learned" list to feed it back to EC - shape FP7 and

beyond?

• The obscurity of R&E networking– Why is that other similar domains such as Information Society

programmes are more "appealing" and "easy to comprehend" in terms of public impact compared to the R&E field?

– is it (our own) “bad marketing”? or– is it a case of a “hard-to-sell product”

Documents

The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007 Geographic Issues Study Background for discussion J.-A. Sanchez-P., N. Vogiatzis Berlin, 23.05.2006