Mobile Startup Proposal Executive Summary for a Startup - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Mobile Startup Proposal Executive Summary for a Startup - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					  ICFA Standing Committee on
Interregional Connectivity (SCIC)

        Harvey B. Newman
    California Institute of Technology
         ICFA SCIC Meeting, CERN
            September 28, 2002
8:30  Startup; Test VRVS Connections
9:00   Introduction                          H. Newman
9:10   Brief Technical Progress Reports
10:15  Reports from the Committee Chairs:
        Status and Plans[*]
        Monitoring:                          L. Cottrell
        Advanced Technologies             R. Hughes-Jones
        End-to-end Connectivity              R. Mount
        Key Requirements                     H. Newman
        The Digital Divide                 A. Santoro
12:30 LUNCH

[*] COFFEE 10:45-11:00
 13:45    Discussion of Digital Divide Issues and
           Approaches to a Solution
 15:00   Update: Planning Discussion and Schedule for the
             February 2003 Report to ICFA
 16:00   COFFEE
 16:30   The Internet Educational Equal       Ed Fantegrossi
          Access Foundation (IEEAF)
 17:00   Points to Present at the ICFA Seminar at CERN
          on October 9; HEPCCC October 18
 17:30   Schedule for the meeting at KEK
 17:40   Adjourn
    ICFA and International Networking

ICFA Statement on Communications in Int’l HEP
 Collaborations of October 17, 1996

  “ICFA urges that all countries and institutions wishing
     to participate even more effectively and fully in
     international HEP Collaborations should:
      Review their operating methods to ensure they are
       fully adapted to remote participation
      Strive to provide the necessary communications
       facilities and adequate international bandwidth”
             ICFA Standing Committee on
           Interregional Connectivity (SCIC)
 Created by ICFA in July 1998 in Vancouver
  Make recommendations to ICFA concerning the
  connectivity between the Americas, Asia and Europe
    As part of the process of developing these
     recommendations, the committee should
       Monitor traffic
       Keep track of technology developments
       Periodically review forecasts of future
        bandwidth needs, and
       Provide early warning of potential problems
 Create subcommittees when necessary to meet the charge
 The chair of the committee should report to ICFA once per
  year, at its joint meeting with laboratory directors
               ICFA-SCIC Core Membership
 Representatives from major HEP    ECFA representatives:
                                    Frederico Ruggieri (INFN
    Manuel Delfino     (CERN)       Frascati),
     to W. Von Rueden               Denis Linglin (IN2P3, Lyon)
    Michael Ernst      (DESY)
                                    ACFA representatives:
    Matthias Kasemann (FNAL)
    Yukio Karita       (KEK)        Rongsheng Xu
    Richard Mount      (SLAC)       (IHEP Beijing)
 User Representatives              HwanBae Park
    Richard Hughes-Jones (UK)       (Korea University)
    Harvey Newman      (USA)        For South America:
    Dean Karlen        (Canada)      Sergio F. Novaes
 For Russia:                       (University de S.Paulo)
    Slava Ilyin        (MSU)
         Organization; Committees
     New Web Page
 Monitoring - Les Cottrell
    With Richard Hughes-Jones, Sergio Novaes (Sao Paolo),
     Sergei Berezhnev (RUHEP), Fukuko Yuasa (KEK), Daniel
     Davids (CERN), Sylvain Ravot (Caltech), Shawn McKee (Michigan)
 Advanced technologies: Richard Hughes-Jones
    With Vladimir Korenkov (JINR, Dubna), Olivier Martin(CERN),
     Harvey Newman
 End-to-end Connectivity: Richard Mount
    With Michael Ernst, Denis Linglin, Alexandre Sztajnberg (UERJ)
 The Digital Divide: Alberto Santoro [Possible help from V. White]
    With Slava Ilyin, Yukio Karita, David O. Williams
    Also Dongchul Son (Korea), Hafeez Hoorani (Pakistan),
     Sunanda Banerjee (India)
 Key Requirements: Harvey Newman
    Also Charlie Young (SLAC)
         ICFA SCIC Monitoring Group
Person             From           Represents
Les Cottrell       SLAC           US/Babar/ESnet
Richard H-Jones    Manchester     UK/JANET
Sergei Berezhnev   MSU, RUHEP     Russia/FSU
Sergio Novaes      FNAL           L. America
Fukuko Yuasa       KEK            Japan & E. Asia
Sylvain Ravot      Caltech        US/CMS
Daniel Davids      CERN           CERN, Europe, LHC
Shawn McKee        U Michigan     Atlas/I2

  ICFA-SCIC-MON web page created:
                      The Digital Divide
 Case Studies: Local political and/or funding barriers
     China, Brazil (Rio); Spain (Madrin); Germany (Karlsruhe); Romania;
       Slovakia, India, Pakistan, Hungary, Yugoslavia and many others
   Success Examples
      AMPATH
      Silk Project: Central FSU
      KEK and South East Asia
   Demographics
      Terena Compendium; Broadband in Asia Report
      OECD Databases for normalization
      Clever demographic plots
   Questionnaire
      How one’s network capabilities affect the ability to “Do Science”
   Suggestions ?
      Methodology
      Presentation
      Approaches to a Solution: Particular; Common Characteristics
   Focus on Ways ICFA Help; and how ICFA-SCIC Can Help
         ICFA SCIC Focus for 2002:
             The Digital Divide
 New Chair: Alberto Santoro (UERJ, Rio de Janeiro)
 Strengthen the Committee to Cover all Regions
    Kunze, Hoorani, Banerjee, (Son)
    Additional People to be Contacted: Jesus Marco (Spain),
      Michal Turala (Cracow); Chen Hesheng (Beijing);
      Romania, … [Suggest Others]
 Categorize Nature of the Problem: Case Studies, Identify
    Lack of Infrastructure; Cost; the Last 0.1/1/10 km;
      the City/State/National Hierarchy
 Systematize the Problem: Demographics
    Where are the HEP Institutes ?
    How many physicists ?
    Find out, or determine - their specific Network Needs.
         Work on the Digital Divide:
           Several Perspectives
 Policies and/or Pricing: China, Southeast Europe
   E.g. RoEduNet (2-6 Mbps) pricing; Not so different
      from US-CERN price for a few Gbps
   Find Ways to work with the Governments, and vendors
 Inter-Regional Help (Example)
   Pricing to Brazil (Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo)
   US NSF Proposal and/or EU LIS Proposal
 Use Model Cases: Installation of advanced fiber
   Poland (2.5k to 5k km); Ireland; Slovakia;
      Czech Republic; Serbia
 Exploit One-off Solutions; extend the SILK Project
  (DESY/FSU) to a SE European site
 Find ways to help with unfavorable NREN pricing:
  e.g. GEANT fee to Russia
  Romania                                   GEANT
(Earlier Plan)                                155Mbps

                 34Mbps            34Mbps


    (Current)                                 GEANT

                   34Mbps            34Mbps


  Annual Cost
1.15 MEuro (Ro)
+ 0.3 MEuro (EU)
Digital Divide Committee
      What ICFA and ICFA/SCIC Can Do
 Identify and highlight specific needs (to Work On)
   Policy problems
   Last Mile problems
 Make direct contacts, arrange discussions with gov’t officials
    ICFA SCIC is prepared to participate
 Help Start or Get Support for Workshops on Networks and Grids
    Discuss & create opportunities
    Start collaborations on a small scale; then grow
    Seek to form funded programs
 Start Joint programs [such as in DESY’s Silk project;
  Japanese links to Russia and China; AMPATH to So. America]
    LIS Proposal: EU to South America
    Pakistan to CERN link being upgraded to 512kbits/s
    Initial contact with Romania, to follow up
 Help form Regional support & training groups (requires funding)
        Mobilizing the Digital Divide
 We have a strong subcommittee Chair
 Commitments to Work; Writing
 Adding Additional Active Members
   Nominated by anyone associated with the SCIC
   IEEAF Contact
 Working with the LHC and then all major collaborations
   Starting with CMS Collaboration Board 9/27
 Holding a Workshop to discuss and deal with this
  specific problem
 Other Suggestions
NOTE: We need a good report by December-January 2003;
                Then the work will Continue.
            Workshops on HENP Grids
                 and Networks
   Feb. 2002: Grid and Network Session       Brazil   (Rio)
   April 2002:Potential of Grids and IT      Romania (Bucharest)
   May 2002:  Internet2 Members’ Plenary     USA       (Wash. DC)
   June 2002: INET2002 (ISOC)                USA       (Wash. DC)
   June 2002: TERENA Annual Meeting          Limerick
   Sept. 2002:iGrid2002
   Oct. 2002: ICFA Seminar                   CERN    (Geneva)
   Nov. 2002: Pan-European Ministerial       Romania (Bucharest)
                Pre-Conference for the WSIS
   Nov. 2002: SC2002
   March 2003: CHEP2003                      USA      (San Diego)
   Lepton-Photon 2003                        FNAL     (Batavia)
   2003:       GGF – TBD
   2003:       World Summit on the           Geneva
                 Information Society (WSIS)
           WSIS-RO: Bucharest Nov. 7-9
        WSIS is 12/03 & 05 (Geneva & Tunis)
 The Regional Ministerial Conference, based on the UN/ECE
  membership, is in preparation of the World Summit on the
  Information Society - Bucharest, 7-9 November 2002
 The UN General Assembly adopted in 2001 a resolution endorsing
  the organization of the World Summit on the Information Society
  (WSIS), to be convened under the patronage of the United Nations
  Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, with the International
  Telecommunication Union taking the lead role in its preparation
  along with interested UN organizations and the host countries.
  The Summit will offer a unique opportunity for the world
  community to discuss and give shape to the Information Society
  by bringing together governments, international organizations,
  private sector and civil society. In preparation for this Summit
  regional conferences are organized to develop specific proposals.
           WSIS-RO: Bucharest Nov. 7-9
        WSIS is 12/03 & 05 (Geneva & Tunis)
 The Pan-European Ministerial Conference in Bucharest will focus
  on concrete issues of relevance for the region, but will keep the
  balance between regional specificity and the global dimension.
 The Conference in Bucharest aims at strengthening the relations
  of cooperation between the participating states with a view to
  adopting a common action plan in the field of communications and
  information technology.
 It will be an opportunity for presenting national strategies,
  achievements and challenges that will help the participants to
  have an accurate view of the stage in the transition process to an
  Information Society as well as an opportunity to develop a
  platform for dialogue that includes all major stakeholders at
  European level – Governments, civil society, private sector and
  international agencies.
       WSIS-RO: Role of New Technologies
      in Developing the Information Society
 Tony Hey, UK Core E-Science Program
 Peter Zangli, European Commission
 Hans Hoffmann, CERN Scientific and TT Director
 Fabrizio Gagliardi: EDG Project Leader
 William Johnston, Lawrence Berkeley Lab
 Dave Reese or Tom West, CENIC, Pacific and Nat’l Light Rail
 Don Riley or Ed Fontegrossi, IEEAF
 Harvey Newman, Caltech
            Network Progress and
         Issues for Major Experiments
 Network backbones are advancing rapidly to 10 Gbps range
    “Gbps” end-to-end throughput data flows have been
      tested; will be in production soon (in 1-2 years)
 Use of wavelengths may start within ~3 years
 Network advances are changing the view of the net’s roles
    Likely to have a profound impact on the experiments’
     Computing Models, and bandwidth requirements
    More dynamic view: of data transactions;
      eventually dynamic network provisioning
 Advanced integrated applications, such as Data Grids, rely on
  seamless “transparent” operation of our LANs and WANs
    With reliable, quantifiable (monitored), high performance
    Networks need to be integral parts of the Grid(s) design
    new paradigms of real network and system monitoring,
     and of new of “managed global systems” for HENP analysis
       Recent & Upcoming Events
Progress in High Throughput: Moving from 0.1 to 1 Gbps
   SLAC – Manchester (Les C. and Richard H-J) (0.4+ Gbps)
   Tsunami (Indiana) (0.8 Gbps UDP + RTP)
   Canada-Amsterdam (To 0.9 Gbps; disk to disk)
   STARLIGHT-CERN (0.9 Gbps) single stream and 1 GbE port;
     to 1.9 Gbps with three streams and ports, using “TCP Grid”
Progress in Pre-Production and Production Networking
   10 Mbytes/sec FNAL-CERN Disk to Disk (Michael Ernst)
   15 Mbytes/sec disk-to-disk Chicago-CERN (Sylvain Ravot)
Try to Reach 300 MB/sec Disk-to-Disk
   To ~ 1GB/sec by Mid-2003
 Wavelength Triangle Set up at iGrid2002
   SURFnet secured Lamdbas to Chicago (Level 3)
      and CERN (Global Crossing); operated at iGrid2002
 Protocol Research: e.g. “Multi-Gbps” TCP with AQM
   (S. Low et al. at Caltech)
   Agreement by Abilene to run “experimental, fair” traffic across it
 Report to HEP-CCC October 18: Please send me your Updates
    Signs of the Times: Uncertainty
       But No Change in Outlook
 Key Providers in Bankruptcy
   KPNQwest, Teleglobe, Global Crossing, FLAG; Worldcom
 Switched to Others, Where Needed and Possible
   E.g. T-Systems (Deutsche Telecom) for US-CERN
Telecom Market Outlook
   Good pricing from DT
   MCI/Worldcom networks continue to operate:
     20 M customers in US; UK academic & research network
   Level3 market share advance; perhaps also Tyco, GX
Link Donations !: NY-Amsterdam OC192 (Tyco to IEEAF)
 Strong Outlook in R&E Nets for Rapid Progress
   Abilene (US) Upgrade On Schedule; GEANT (Europe), and
     SuperSINET(Japan) Plans Continuing
   ESNet Backbone Upgrade: 2.5 Gbps “Now”; 10 Gbps in 2 Yrs.
   Regional Progress, and Visions;
        E.g. CALREN: “1 Gbps to Every Californian by 2010”
        iGrid2002: OC192+OC48 Trial
                 This Week

Assisted by Level3 (OC192) and Cisco (10GbE and 16X1GbE)
              Max. Sustained TCP Throughput
                  on Transatlantic Links

   8/10/01
          105 Mbps reached with 30 Streams: SLAC-IN2P3
   9/1/01102 Mbps in One Stream: CIT-CERN
         125 Mbps in One Stream (modified kernel): CIT-CERN
         190 Mbps for One stream shared on 2 155 Mbps links
         120 Mbps Disk-to-Disk with One Stream on 155 Mbps
              link (Chicago-CERN)
 5/20/02 450 Mbps SLAC-Manchester on OC12 with ~100 Streams
 6/1/02  290 Mbps Chicago-CERN One Stream on OC12 (mod. Kernel)
 9/02    850 Mbps Chicago-CERN One Stream on OC48 (mod. Kernet)
         1350+ (1900+) Mbps with 2 (3) Streams on 2 (3) GbE Ports
 Also see;
 and the Internet2 E2E Initiative:
US-CERN DataTAG Link Tests
      with Grid TCP

   3 Streams;
   3 GbE Ports

 1-3 Streams;
 1-3 GbE Ports
                LHCnet Network : Late 2002
               GEANT               Switch            IN2P3                WHO

CERN -Geneva
                                            Alcatel 7770     Cisco 7606    Juniper M10
                      Linux PC for           DataTAG          DataTAG       DataTAG
                    Performance tests         (CERN)          (CERN)         (CERN)
   Cisco 7609
     CERN             & Monitoring
                                                           Optical Mux/Dmux
                                                             Alcatel 1670

           622 Mbps (Prod.)                        2.5 Gbps          (R&D)

                          Linux PC for                     Optical Mux/Dmux
    Cisco 7609                                               Alcatel 1670
                        Performance tests
                          & Monitoring
                                            Alcatel 7770     Cisco 7606   Juniper M10
                                             DataTAG          Caltech       Caltech
                                              (CERN)            (DoE)        (DoE)
Caltech/DoE PoP – StarLight Chicago

     Abilene             ESnet          NASA                MREN              STARTAP
Development and tests
      The Rapid Pace of Network
    Technology Advances Continues
         Within the Next One to Two Years
 10 Gbps Ethernet on Switches and Servers;
   LAN/WAN integration at 10 Gbps
   Intel 10 GbE server NICs in Beta Test
 40 Gbps Wavelengths Being Shown
 HFR: 100 Mpps forwarding engines, 4 and More 10
 Gbps ports per Slot; Terabit/sec backplanes etc.
 Broadband Wireless [Multiple 3G/4G alternatives]:
  the drive to defeat the last mile problem
   802.11 ab, UWB; Mobile: CDMA2000/1xEV-DO
       HENP Major Links: BW Roadmap
        in Gbps; Shown at ICHEP2002
Year    Production    Experimental        Remarks
2001      0.155         0.622-2.5        SONET/SDH
2002      0.622            2.5          SONET/SDH
                                      DWDM; GigE Integ.
2003        2.5            10         DWDM; 1 + 10 GigE
2005        10          2-4 X 10            Switch;
                                         Provisioning
2007     2-4 X 10      ~10 X 10;       1st Gen.  Grids
                       40 Gbps
2009     ~10 X 10      ~5 X 40 or         40 Gbps 
        or 1-2 X 40   ~20-50 X 10         Switching
2011    ~5 X 40 or    ~25 X 40 or       2nd Gen  Grids
         ~20 X 10      ~100 X 10       Terabit Networks
2013     ~Terabit     ~MultiTerabit     ~Fill One Fiber
                    HENP Lambda Grids:
                     Fibers for Physics
 Problem: Extract “Small” Data Subsets of 1 to 100 Terabytes from 1 to
  1000 Petabyte Data Stores
 Survivability of the HENP Global Grid System, with
  hundreds of such transactions per day (circa 2007)
  requires that each transaction be completed in a
  relatively short time.
 Example: Take 800 secs to complete the transaction. Then
     Transaction Size (TB)     Net Throughput (Gbps)
          1                         10
         10                        100
        100                       1000 (Capacity of
                                          Fiber Today)
 Summary: Providing Switching of 10 Gbps wavelengths
  within ~3 years; and Terabit Switching within ~6-10 years
  would enable “Petascale Grids with Terabyte transactions”
  within this decade, as required to fully realize the discovery potential
  of major HENP programs, as well as other data-intensive fields.
    TAN WG (HN, L. Price). Note that
  BW Req. for 2005+[*]: Likely to Change
       2001 2002     2003    2004    2005    2006
 CMS    100     200    300     600     800     2500
ATLAS    50     100    300     600     800     2500
BaBar   300     600    1100   1600    2300     3000
 CDF    100     300    400    2000    3000     6000
  D0    400    1600    2400   3200    6400     8000
BTeV     20     40     100     200     300      500
DESY    100     180    210     240     270      300

CERN 155- 622 2500 5000 10000 20000
 BW     310
  [*] Installed BW. Maximum Link Occupancy 50% Assumed
                                        "Non Nobis Solo"
IEEAF Vision                             (Not by ourselves alone)

• Accelerate the global growth of Internet2 to achieve
  "universal educational access” to:

  • Enable and stimulate the rapid expansion of research
    and educational collaboration in many forms between
    teaching and learning institutions around the world.

  • Cultivate and promote practical solutions to delivering
    scalable, universally available and equitable access to
    suitable bandwidth and necessary network resources
    in support of these collaborations.
       GEO - The Catalyst
GEO builds carrier hotel buildings and supports the IEEA
Foundation goals which include helping to solve the
digital divide.


         Submarine                   Terrestial
           Fiber                       Fiber
Tyco Atlantic Donation
Tyco Northern Europe Donation
Tyco Telecomm Donation Summary
• Colocation space in NYC for Expanded NY Int’l Exch. Pt
• Production R&E Bandwidth: 622 Mbps
   • NY-London-Groningen (Netherlands)
      • Connects to IEEAF fiber to Amsterdam & Hamburg
   • CA-Tokyo-Singapore
• Research 10 Gbps optical wavelength
   • NY-London-Groningen (Netherlands)
   • CA-Tokyo-Singapore
• 200sq.ft. Co-location space in each of global facilities
• Additional donations as global build-out continues

• GEO will donate real estate
  • 15K sq.ft. in each of two new International
    carrier hotels (Hayward/CA, MD/DC)
  • 200 sq.ft. in each of other facilities

• GEO will try to get others (wet fiber/dry
  fiber/equipment/etc.) to donate as part
  of business negotiations
Groningen Carrier Hotel: March 2002
               Global Medical Research Exchange Initiative
                                     Bio-Medicine and Health Sciences

                                                                                          St. Petersburg

                                                                          NL                               Uzbekistan

                               CA                             Barcelona        Greece                 CN
                                                                                        Mumbai             SG

                                                    Paolo                                                       PERTH
      Layer 1 – Spoke & Hub Sites

      Layer 2 – Spoke & Hub Sites

      Layer 3 – Spoke & Hub Sites

Global Quilt Initiative – GMRE Initiative - 001
Tyco Southern Europe Donation
Tyco Transpacific Donation
U.S. Donations Under Negotiation
• Fiber Across U.S. (Actual Routes T.B.D.)

• Other discussions in progress (non-disclosure)
      Global Medical Research Exchange Initiative
                    Bio-Medicine and Health Sciences

           Real-time Procedures


City or Country A                                      City or Country B
IEEAF Board of Directors
CENIC                               John Charles (CSU Hayward)
                                    Jerry Hanley (Cal Poly SLO)
                                    John Silvester (Univ. of So.Cal)
GEO (Geographic                     Ed Fantegrossi
Network Affiliates, Intl.)
PI2 (Pacific Internet2 Coalition)   David Lassner (Univ. of Hawaii)

P/NG (Pacific/Northwest Gigapop)Ron Johnson (Univ. of Washington)
University of Maryland              Don Riley

UCAID (University Corporation       Steve Corbato
for Advanced Internet
Indiana University                  Michael McRobbie

International Member                  (TBD)
International Member                  (TBD)
                 Planning for 2/2003
                   Report to ICFA
 Main Report from Digital Divide Sub-Committee;
  also Reports from Monitoring and Advanced Technologies
    Requirements and E2E: Need more work on the
      Computing Models
 Detailed Outlines Due Before ICFA Seminar Talk October 9
 Also Present a Map of HEP Groups/Network Connectivity
 Digital Divide Draft Report in Mid-October
 Well Developed Near-Final Drafts By December 10
 Meeting Proposed for December 13 at KEK [with ACFA reps.]
    Discuss Report Draft
    Report on 10 Gbps SuperSINET Ops;
      Review Situation in Asia-Pacific Region
 Report Delivered to ICFA January 2003 or Beginning of February,
  in Advance of February 13-14 Meeting.
                  Report to ICFA:
                 Sketch of Content
 ~10 Page Report with 1 Page Executive Summary
 Refer to Subcommittee reports on the Web
    Monitoring Group: 10 Pages with Many Pictures and Graphs
    Digital Divide Group: 10 Pages of Text, Many Pictures, Graphs,
      Tables; ~2 illustrations in the main report
    Advanced Technologies Group: 10 pages + references to a lot
      of technical reports and information on the Web.
    Requirements: Comments on the Computing Model that
     follow from above: ~5-6 pages.
          Digital Divide Discussion
 Send Questionnaire to Michel (CMS), Peter Jenni (ATLAS),
  LHCb, ALICE ? Or to LCG (?)
 Santoro: Send list of people and institutes already asked to Yukio
 Give Questionnaire to Wolfgang Von Rueden to make Web form;
  fill in online and submit
 World Map to fill in: set up to fill information from one city
  to another. Also add HEP Institute to the Map.
  Phase 1: Analysis and Limited Implementation; then Review and
  Phase 2: Full Implementation
  Phase 3: Maintenance
    Web pages: purpose, project description and goals
    Investigate, gather information
    Need utilization as well as Bandwidth
    Find resources: maps and information (e.g. USGS)
    Build database; keep it up to date
    Build tools for querying and for entering information onto the maps
    Responsibility in Americas: HN+Alberto+Heidi; Europe: ?
       Try TERENA
         then Maintenance among the Labs: e.g. CERN, Fermilab, SLAC
    Connection to other tools: PINGER; MONALISA Monitoring System
        Digital Divide Discussion (2)
Web pages for experiences in solving last mile problems,
 local infrastructure, last mile (fiber IRU) pricing,
 vendor contacts
Systematize, Classify Regions, Countries, Institutes
      Dead or Nearly Disconnected Regions
      Hot Spots: Use of Existing Capacity to > 50%
      Moderate
      Advanced
      (Grouping by Regions and/or Countries is related to the Monitoring Group)
      Doing this is connected to filling in the World Map with HEP Institutes
Begin relationship with IEEAF ?
Then New Classification: also vendors who donated something:
    Level3, Tyco, GX; Cisco, Juniper, Etc. … IBM, Microsoft (?), Gelato
    Define Conditions; Sponsor Plateaus
    Review applications by our committee;
     special allowances for less favored countries or regions
    Attractive Web Page with Logos;
     List and describe research projects.
       DD Discussion (3): Workshop
 ICFA SCIC Workshop: Planning the first Workshop
    Focus on the Digital Divide
    Go to the Region that needs it; have a well-defined goal
      for an institute or group of institutes (network upgrade; see below)
    Need a local organizer (organizing committee)
    Arrange a sponsor
        Possible sponsors, one or more of UNESCO, IAEA, NATO; or
         Foundations; Companies; or individual donors.
    Install a good network and leave it running;
        Ensure funding for maintenance etc.
        Leave tools for networks and collaboration:
          Monitoring, VRVS, etc.
 Get Project Leader(s); also fund raising: e.g. H.A.
 Target Date: February 2004; Rio de Janeiro, LISHEP.
  Organization meeting Early July 2003; Invite potential sponsors, agencies…
    100-150 people
    NOTE: Statement and press release at WSIS (Geneva) December 2003.
 Thinking of doing this meeting 2 times per year after the first one
    Requires a team for 2 months of planning then followup
    Team of 2-3 people; 1 to 1.5 FTE; travel funds etc.
             IEEAF: Ed Fantegrossi
 Ed built 700 colocation facilties; GEO
 He is the one who arranges the assets to enable the donations
  in IEEAF
 In 2 years went from zero to > $ 100M of donations
 53 more pending donations; combined assets > $ 1B
 Opportunity has been enhanced by hard situation of
 Empowered by “teachers” of opportunities to create linkages;
  need to be “behavioralist who unfolds diabolical plots”
 In world of telecomms; providers look at first high volume
  financial users (17 top); then multinational corporates;
  then after that the rest – the first two are the drivers
 We (HENP) are the fathers of thee development of the R&E
  networks; through our global reach and critical mass
              IEEAF: Ed Fantegrossi
 Collectively able to use, apply and direct that (?) into a
  better rate of growth
    Once we develop a (macro-)plan
 Motivated by the willingness to serve a larger community
 Business Model
    Create (fear of) competition; since Open Markets
    Aided by difficult financial conditions of telecom
     provider companies
 New Dynamic to Create Donations
    GEO company made money in the first phase, then
    Brought forward Medical Global Exchange project by 18 months;
     22 Exchange points now; want several hundred
    Get clients to build facilities
    Then get content; people who would use the facilities
 Stay invisible; if donation-plan was visible companies
  would not allow IEEAF+GEO to continue to this.
              IEEAF: Ed Fantegrossi
 Work from Macro to Micro
 Large scale plan then deal with some individual cases
 Have built facilities from financial mission critical to carrier
  style to boutique markets; also contact with the energy sector
 Know 640 (multi-B$ ?) utilities
 Have arranged pricing of 1/50 of previous pricing in markets;
    E.G. 27 Mbps for $ 3M now 10 Gbps on the paying side;
     i.e. BW ~30 times
 Keep pushing back the Digital Divide
 Energy providers: stranded fiber assets; if deregulated then
  ticking clock for arranging access to much greater BW.
    Give an energy contract (10 years?) in return for free BW;
     Avoid creating a new energy monopoly
 Already done: NY-UK-NL-soon DE
 Also: CA-Japan-Korea-HK-Singapore (January I think).
              IEEAF: Ed Fantegrossi
 Key factor is: Is there enough of a potential new market base.
 Need to: provide all HEP Institute information; put on world
  map; distinguish major laboratories, large and small institutes
  or universities
 Also start by providing Ed with info. for 3 needy areas –
  Santoro (Brazil and South America); Banerjee (India);
  Ilyin (Russia and former FSU)
 IMPORTANT: Make CERN a major opportunity and test case
    Idea is to get 2 fiber-pairs donated to CERN (the biggest
     case so far) from the Hamburg cable landing point
       Or if not possible at least wavelengths
    Visit of Ed and/or Don to CERN; before visit to Hamburg –
     ideal time for us is the ICFA Seminar, with best day October 10;
     he has to check his schedule, but will try hard to do it.
      Wolfgang to arrange visit and ~15 minutes in front of ICFA
 Contact DESY and EMBL when Ed visits Hamburg

Shared By:
Description: Mobile Startup Proposal Executive Summary for a Startup document sample