| | 11 | ''These lists are very preliminary and should not be treated as |
| | 12 | complete or final. Expanding, correcting, and revising these lists are |
| | 13 | important components of the ongoing planning process. In addition, it |
| | 14 | may not be possible to consider each element of governance, |
| | 15 | administration, and finance in isolation (e.g., a particular approach |
| | 16 | to governance may well have financial implications).'' |
| | 17 | |
| | 18 | == Candidate role models and alliances == |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | One strategy for transition is to structure future GENI efforts along |
| | 21 | the lines of a previous or existing model. This strategy could be |
| | 22 | pursued by: |
| | 23 | * ''Mimicing'': replicating the approach of another organization |
| | 24 | * ''Cherry picking'': selecting the best aspects of multiple models |
| | 25 | * ''Merger'': joining GENI with an existing organization |
| | 26 | |
| | 27 | Candidate organizations/models include (in no particular order): |
| | 28 | * Internet Society |
| | 29 | * UCAR – University Corporation for Atmospheric Research |
| | 30 | * Standards working group (e.g., IEEE 802.xx) |
| | 31 | * !PlanetLab |
| | 32 | * Internet2 |
| | 33 | * Internet2 !NetPlus services |
| | 34 | * USENIX |
| | 35 | * Educause |
| | 36 | * US Ignite |
| | 37 | * Open Science Grid |
| | 38 | * Open Cloud Consortium |
| | 39 | * NSFNet Network Access Points -> Internet Exchange Points |
| | 40 | |
| | 41 | == Candidate tactics for governance == |
| | 42 | |
| | 43 | * Establish a non-profit entity (or join an existing one) to own assets and coordinate funding. |
| | 44 | * Establish a governing body to establish governance policy and assure alignment with future research trends. |
| | 45 | * Choose members of governing body based on established reputation in research community. |
| | 46 | * Choose members of governing body based on prior contributions to project. |
| | 47 | * Choose members of governing body based on financial contribution. |
| | 48 | * Recompete GPO function, positing a declining funding model. |
| | 49 | * Create checks and balances between governers (speak for science & users) and technical director(s). |
| | 50 | |
| | 51 | == Candidate tactics for administration (and sustainment) == |
| | 52 | |
| | 53 | * Grow and sustain infrastructure by asking participating sites to contribute and maintain at least a specified minimal configuration. |
| | 54 | * Establish a small cadre of professional operations staff to accomplish most maintenance (hardware and software), as well as response to legal and law enforcement concerns. |
| | 55 | * Enable as much remote administration of equipment as possible. |
| | 56 | * Distribute sustainment responsibility to host institutions. |
| | 57 | * Ensure that each site has someone with "skin in the game" to serve as contact. |
| | 58 | |
| | 59 | |
| | 60 | == Candidate tactics for finance == |
| | 61 | |
| | 62 | * Establish an expectation of declining funding from NSF (e.g. $X, reduced by 1/3 annually over a three-year period). |
| | 63 | * Spread ongoing costs onto a mix of users (researchers, educators, institutions), government funders, sponsors, and/or equipment vendors. |
| | 64 | * Consider success in obtaining non-NSF funding to be a measure of demand for GENI infrastructure and technology. |
| | 65 | * Ask sites to finance their own equipment refresh. |
| | 66 | * Establish a central pool of funding for refresh and expend according to agreed priorities. |
| | 67 | * Seek corporate sponsorships. |
| | 68 | * Avoid corporate sponsorships. |
| | 69 | * Monetize GENI infrastructure and/or technology. |
| | 70 | * Charge end-users, multiple possible models |
| | 71 | * Individual user pays directly (possibly by including cost in research grant proposal) |
| | 72 | * Access is allocated by a science board, based on merit (assumes a different source of funding) |
| | 73 | * Institutions (CIOs) pay for access, which is provided free to individual researchers, via overhead |
