Planning for Cyberinfrastructure CI Development in EPSCoR States

1
Planning for Cyberinfrastructure (CI) Development
in EPSCoR States

• Discussion breakoutsNSF EPSCoR CI workshopMay
  10-12 2006
• Compiled byTerry Moore and Mel Ciment

2
Q1. Drivers and enabling technologies

• What are the main opportunities, applications and
  enabling technologies driving the development of
  CI plans?
• What are the perceived benefits of
  Cyber-infrastructure deployment in your State?
• What are the major RD Applications Drivers that
  require advanced Cyber-infrastructure?
• What are the key enabling technologies for
  advancing your CI plans?Facilitator Micah
  BeckScribe Rich Sincovec

3
Key enabling Technology Networking

• Networking is important but cyber infrastructure
  is much more so
• RON
• Regional optical networks are being formed with
  examples in EPSCoR states.
• Costs and users still are issues.
• Top down or bottom up have driven the deployment
  of these RONs

4
Non-networking Tech Enablers

• Storage
• Computing
• Instruments
• Applications
• Visualization
• NSF Centers (probably underused by EPSCoR states)
• Why?

5
Main Benefits of Cyberinfrastructure?

• Inside or outside of state?
• Education opportunities
• Economic drivers?
• Example of obstacle
• Willingness to share data

6
Applications

• Medical resources multi-state collaborative
  project that could access might enable
  opportunities.
• Solve locally or in a broader sense.
• Education and training
• More than just bandwidth
• Drought risk assessment
• Multiple data bases
• Sharing of data
• Natural resource management
• Agriculture decision support
• Synchronous and asynchronous approaches

7
Applications

• Application driven approaches
• CI driven approaches
• Co-funding is appropriate, e.g., CISE plus
  application area
• NSF is looking for mechanisms so CI driving
  applications or applications driving CI my depend
  on NSF program. Co-funding is a high priority.
• TN 110 plan reaching rural parts of state also
  included high performance backbone. Education,
  electronic library, large caches at high end
  computing, health care.
• Medical imaging
• Resource sharing of instruments

8
Applications

• Multiple resolution imaging
• Access to data, discover new results in the data
• Lot of important applications need better tools
  so need people for survivability.
• People may be harder to get than equipment.
  Equipment rich and people poor.
• Underlying issue is always sustainability.

9
Requirements

• People, people, people
• Gaming to get the people and yet have the
  resources
• Renovation costs are important but source of
  funds is problematic
• Access Grid support was problematic

10
Key Enabling Technologies

• Campus infrastructure networking
• Firewalls create barriers
• Costs per port may restrict innovation
• Other network operating restrictions
• Separate research network on campus
• Question Are these substantial obstacles?
• Need to work and collaborate with campus IT folks

11
CI in General

• Some things can be done in the lab
• Desire to deploy global infrastructure
• Put stuff out there and see what happens
• Social thing is a driver
• Create separate networks
• Technology to minimize IT folks issues

12
CI for Other Disciplines

• What are our responsibilities and role?
• Do we have the tools?
• Hartford Life Ins has implemented CI
• CI is real What are the benefits?
• Spread CI around or the digital divide will
  become even larger
• Money to be made so companies like Microsoft
  should have a role in addressing the digital
  divide
• We cannot wait for the commercial folks since CI
  enables research which commercial may not have as
  a high priority

13
Q2 Requirements

• What are the requirements for successful
  implementation of Cyber-infrastructure in your
  state?
• How do you plan and implement CI advances?
• What are the impacts of regional and statewide
  initiative in deploying network capacity? To what
  extent are your advances limited by lack of such
  plans?
• Are you able to attract qualified personnel and
  leaders in IT departments?
• Facilitator Mary Fran Yafchak
• Scribe Seth Lilly

14
Initial Themes

• Networking
• Dark Fiber available, but restricted due to
  political or financial reasons.
• Wide range of connectivity options cable. T1,
  fiber, microwave
• Alaska has telcos negotiating the majority of the
  higher-speed connections.
• Canada is telco friendly much nicer regulation
  therefore, more connectivity.
• Organizational inconsistencies exist and make CI
  planning difficult

15
Required Homework

• Understand and address the states climate
  (political, carriers, K-12, higher ed)
• Understand existing infrastructure
  right-of-way, dark fiber, etc.
• Research leadership One or two dedicated
  researchers can make a difference in
  participating in a grid/connectivity environment.
  
• Identify which resources/stakeholders
  (government/education/carriers/businesses) are
  useful in solving each step of implementation
• Tennessee contributors included UT System, Board
  of Regents (about 20 universities) and Economic
  Development
• Learn from the experiences of other successful
  implementations, through networking opportunities
  (Internet2, EPSCoR, SURA)

16
Required Goals and attitudes

• Regionalism (looking outside state boundaries)
• Be persistent with your funding requests.
• Have a purpose for implementation (application
  examples)
• Organize for good internal communications

17
Impediments and Facilitators

• Impediments for successful CI implementation
• Carrier support
• State support
• Facilitators of successful CI implementation
• Additional assets
• Innovative thinking

18
How to Plan and Implement CI advances

• Identify a neutral group to develop a viable
  demonstration and model.
• Groups that begin partisan end partisan.
• Regular and persistent communication to core
  groups political, constituents (targeted
  audiences) and those who have existing
  implementations.
• Finally identify your champions political,
  educational, business and utilize them
  strategically.

19
Can you get the people you need?

• We are not able to attract the qualified
  personnel and leaders in IT That we need.
• This is a universal issue, and a strong
  recommendation is given to train your own.
  Cultivation and retention are issues which need
  to be addressed.

20
Q3. Organizational Mechanisms and Key Players
What are the most constructive organizational
mechanisms and associated key individuals to help
develop CI plans?Facilitator Bonnie
NeasScribe Dorette Kerian
21
a) Stakeholders and how do they communicate?

• Need common vision and goal for CI.
• Stakeholders are those who believe in visions and
  goals and meet regularily to advance goals.
• In planning stage, stakeholders are researchers,
  educators, public safety and business leaders,
  etc.

22
b) What degree of State financial commitment is
necessary for development?

• Need high level of state commitment - 50 or more
  but less than 100.
• Need to develop business plan and find state
  funding long enough to get through initial
  development.
• States should commit to CI analogously to the
  multiple funding mechanisms used for state
  highway systems

23
c) Are there advocates for cross-institutional
and statewide CI development?

• Yes, Stakeholders listed in A plus national
  agencies (such as NSF EPSCoR and Oak Ridge
  National labs) as well regional and national
  educational affiliations.
• There is potential for catalyst but, potential
  for obstructionists. Theres strength in numbers
  and value in a champion.

24
d) The most effective state-wide regional
collaborations for promoting CI

• Most effective statewide and regional
  collaboration. States are relaxing policy to
  enable collaboration.
• States have different examples of how this works
  but recent events from 9/11 and Katrina have
  forced some to focus on more pressing needs.
• Indiana benefits from having a state foundation
  with funds,
• SURA regional organization addresses common
  visions and issues
• Louisiana collaboration was brought together by
  key researcher champion.

25
Other

• Stakeholders differing needs/levels of
  expectations result in varying demands on CI
  network
• There is a need for a national vision.
• Local jurisdictions can also assume a role in
  developing CI, example local sales tax.

26
Q4. Challenges and Case Studies What was
required for successful plan implementation?
Adapted from John Connollys Notes

• What mechanisms have been successful in promoting
  buy-in from various stakeholders?
• Are cost-benefits analyses of application drivers
  or critical components helpful?
• What leadership is needed for the transition from
  plan development to CI implementation?
• What can we learn from other successful CI
  implementations?

27
Successful University Sector buy-in mechanisms

• Research must drive justification
• robust cyberinfrastructure is necessary to
  compete for national programs
• examples GEON, NEON, Teragrid, Petascale
  facilities, , QUASI (hydrology) CERN Tier 2 ,
  SciDAC, etc
• Forming a open community of science such as OSG,
  SURAgrid, GridChem
• Other applications like teleconferencing and
  telemedicine.
• Counterargument If your average use is 10 why
  do you need more capacity?
• Answer The bursty nature of research and other
  examples.

28
Successful Private Sector Buy-in Mechanisms

• Some companies use CI to create new jobs, BUT
  some, e.g., telecommunications business, regard
  public programs as competition.
• The challenge is to convince industry that
  partnering with the research community is to
  their advantage.
• Recall that the original internet wasnt of any
  interest to private industry until it had been
  seed funded by the Federal Government.

29
Successful State Government Buy-in Mechanisms

• Many functions of state government,- connections
  to county courthouses, drivers license , tax
  collection can be enhanced by partnership with
  academic grids.
• Most state governments need to be convinced that
  CI will provide economic development , and it is
  a challenge to convince them hat there is a
  connection.. the private sector needs to help
  make the argument that CI can provide JOBS!
• One of the obstacles is the EPSCoR Dilemma
  Most of the EPSCoR jurisdictions are not heavily
  industrialized so there are less advocates from
  the private sector, and the costs of networking
  are high due to being far from the central part
  of the country (AK,HI and PR) are far from major
  urban centers where the gigapops are. Both
  factors increase the cost/benefit ratio.

30
Proposed Federal Government Role

• The NSF has in the past subsidized network
  connections to universities (e.g.Internet2) but
  doesnt do so now.
• This policy should be updated in the light of the
  EPSCoR opportunity.
• The essence of EPSCoR is to create the level
  playing field, but the field in
  cyberinfrastructure is becoming less level.. the
  gap between CA and KY is widening. Thomas
  Friedman says that the world is flat, but perhaps
  the US is not? (actually Friedman also admits
  that the world is not level in certain cases,-
  think of the EPSCoR part of the world like
  sub-Saharan Africa Grid-wise.)
• The Federal Government should promote flatness by
  starting a Rural Gridification Program to promote
  research, development, education and training
• Analogous to the Rural Electrification
  Administration of the 1930s
• This could also include rural parts of non-EPSCoR

31
Needed State Leadership

• In many states, the EPSCoR committee plays a key
  coordinating role, since it is often one of the
  only entities which cares about state wide
  issues.
• Kentucky EPSCoR has special programs for the more
  rural areas in the state, and is part of a larger
  structure KSTCKentucky Science and Technology
  Council which looks at development, outreach and
  educational issues, all of which are affected by
  having a robust and advanced cyberinfrastructure.
• State governments can play key roles in trying to
  secure Federal government support from a variety
  of agencies, not just NSF
• Hawaii, one of the furthest of the EPSCoR states
  gets help from the Defense Department in
  networking to the mainland. Cyberinfrastructure
  will be very important to the Department of
  Homeland Security which must ensure that the
  nations critical data structure be resilient to
  malicious attack.

32
Lessons Learned from CI Implementations

• Of course, many of the non-EPSCoR states
  (California for example) have gargantuan
  cyberinfrastructure, and those would not be
  suitable models.
• One EPSCoR state which has lead the way is
  Louisiana which has invested substantial funding
  into cyberinfrastructure in all its aspects, -
  including big iron hardware, wide band networks,
  and software and training activities.
• Another plan, which we hope will be successful,
  is the Northern Tier project in North Dakota and
  neighboring states.
• Outside the US, such EPSCoR-like entities as
  Canada and Korea have provided very advanced
  cyberinfrastructure (more advanced than many
  parts of the US in fact) and they, and their
  national justifications, could be used as very
  useful role models.