The Case for NRENs: Justification and Importance in the Network-Communications Sector

1. The Case for NRENs GA Meeting 31 11-12 June 2009 Málaga, Spain John DYER TERENA dyer@terena.org

2. Why develop this paper? • NRENs ask • Some NRENs have developed some material • Experience from helping NRENs in the GN2-NA4 activity • Provide a source document for all our members • To articulate “THE CASE FOR NRENs”

3. 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

4. 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).

5. 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 inplain English simply and clearly. (AUS)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. The Question of Funding • A complete spectrum exists in Europe: 100% user-client funding 100% non-user-client and . . . . . . . . . . everything in between Non-User /Client Funding User/Client Funding DATA SOURCE: TERENA COMPENDIUM 2008

10. Historical Perspectives on Central Funding • Ptolemaic Dynasty – 300BC • BACONIAN – 1605 • ADAM SMITH - 1776 • OECD – 2003 private funding should drive research • Experiences of 2008-2009

11. Why is there a need for central/government funding of NRENs? • Users have short term investment horizons • Governments can invest in long term innovation • The most sustainable is probably a hybrid Production services Innovation & Development New infrastructure investments ~ 5 years Funding CENTRAL funding USER funding Time Developed from work by Donald Clark, REANNZ

12. 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

13. 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 pioneeringmission of NRENs

14. 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

15. Conclusions • NRENs occupy a special position in the data-communications 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

16. A Source Document for NRENs  http://www.terena.org/publications/