MINUTES TERENA GA 21-11 October 1999


Final Draft Minutes of the 12th GA meeting

21-22 October 1999

Istanbul, Turkey


1. Welcome and Apologies

The President opened the meeting. He stated that he was pleased to be serving TERENA and highlighted the importance of networking in building the economic strength of the U.S., Europe and other parts of the world. He felt that TERENA had an important role to play in helping to ensure European coherence in this field. He expressed his gratitude to ULAKBIM for hosting the meeting and to the main sponsor, Cisco. He also expressed feelings of sympathy towards the victims of the recent earthquake and the Turkish people and government.

Professor Namik Pak, Chairman of TUBITAK, the Turkish Scientific Research Council, welcomed the delegates, stressing the value of research networking and the value of ULAKBIM's TERENA membership.

The President welcomed Tuncay Birand from ULAKBIM as new representative. He welcomed Erdogan Yilmaz and Tural Kaptan from ULAKBIM as observers.

Bob Aiken (Cisco), Brian Carpenter (IBM), Kees Neggers and Boudewijn Nederkoorn (SURFnet), Markus Sadeniemi (FUNET), Olivier Martin (CERN), Andre Choo (Teleglobe), John Boland and Michael Walsh (HEAnet), Predrag Pale (CARNet), Urs Eppenberger (SWITCH), Dorte Olesen (UNI-C), Victor Castelo and Manuel Rincon (RedIRIS), Jan Gruntorád (CESNET), Margita Kon-Popovska (MARNET) and Siavash Shahshahani (IPM) had all conveyed their apologies for the 12th GA meeting.

Agathoclis Stylianou (CYNET) was unable to attend the meeting due to late arrival of the visa. The GA expressed its disappointment that this problem should occur; organisations hosting TERENA events should offer guarantees that all who wanted to attend would be able to obtain a visa. The GA asked the Secretariat to ensure that this issue is always drawn to the attention of the organisers of future TERENA events.

Brian Gilmore represented SURFnet, the Netherlands, with proxy; Vesna Vrga represented CARNet, Croatia, with proxy; Marko Bonac represented SWITCH, Switzerland, with proxy; John Dyer represented HEAnet, Ireland, with proxy.

David Williams clarified that he no longer has any line-management responsibility for CERN networking, and had accepted his election as TERENA President on the basis that he is acting in an individual capacity. Therefore, in the absence of Olivier Martin, he preferred not to represent CERN as a proxy.

Several delegates expressed their surprise that proxies are given to representatives or members of other NRNs and especially that the existing rules allowed proxies to be given to TERENA staff members. The President noted that this might be looked into at a subsequent revision of the TERENA Statutes.

The number of votes represented was 70 out of a total of 117.

The list of participants is annexed to these minutes.

2. Approval of Agenda, GA(99)019

The GA approved the agenda for the 12th TERENA GA meeting, GA(99)019.

(Note: click here for the slides that illustrate the various agenda items.)

3. Minutes and Action list of previous GA meeting

  1. Minutes of the 11th TERENA General Assembly, Lund
  2. D12-01 The General Assembly unanimously approved the minutes of the 11th GA meeting, Lund, 10-11 June 1999, without change.

  3. GA Action list update
  4. The GA noted that the one action item from the previous GA was on the agenda under item 3c.

  5. Note on Services
  6. Karel Vietsch introduced the note (GA(99)027). It explained that the Vice President for Services had been an inheritance from the time that TERENA was still running the GUM NCC and RIPE NCC services. TERENA could provide pilot services, but under the responsibility of the Vice President for the Technical Programme. Operational services were the area of DANTE. This was a clear division of responsibilities, which should be adhered to. Good collaboration between TERENA and DANTE was important for this division of responsibilities to work.

    The GA took note of the document.

4. Membership matters

  1. Report on terminations of membership
  2. The GA noted that the memberships of the Academy of Sciences (Azerbaijan), UNICOM-B (Bulgaria) and the Republican Center for Informatics (Moldova) had been terminated on 1 September 1999.

  3. Admission of new members
  4. No new applications for membership had been received.

  5. Changes in membership - GA(99)031
  6. D12-02 The GA admitted INFN as the National Member for Italy on behalf of GARR, replacing CNR.

  7. Changes in representatives
  8. CEENet
    Jan Gruntorád had been appointed as the Representative in place of Tomasz Hofmokl and Jacek Gajewski had been appointed as the Substitute Representative in place of Peter Rastl.

    FRCU (Egypt)
    Gamal Aly had been appointed as the Representative in place of Osman Badr, who sadly had passed away, and Gamal Darwish had been appointed as the Substitute Representative in place of Nashwa Abdelbaki.

    INFN/GARR (Italy)
    Enzo Valente had been appointed as the Representative and Stefano Trumpy as his substitute.

    Bert Dekkers had been appointed as Substitute Representative in place of Lee Caldwell.

    ULAKBIM (Turkey)
    Tuncay Birand had been appointed as the new Representative in place of Namik Pak.

    Stanislaw Starzak remarked that when POL-34 was admitted as National Member, it had at the same time intended to resign from Associate Membership. He promised to confirm this in a letter.

    The GA noted the information.

  9. Outstanding membership fees
  10. Lajos Bálint reported that five members had outstanding fees. CACEDU (Belarus) was the only member that was more than one year in arrears. The five members concerned were called upon to pay their debts as soon as possible.

    The GA noted the information.

5. Technical Programme - GA(99)024

  1. Projects and Task Forces - progress report
  2. TERENA Technical Committee
  3. John Dyer presented the status of and developments in the TERENA Technical Programme. (Click here for the slide presentation.)

    The TTC had met for the first time in its new composition on 5-6 October 1999. The four appointed members had each taken on a special interest area as their portfolio: Olav Kvittem would look after DiffServ and Quality of Service, Stanislaw Starzak Caching and Indexing, Peter Valkenburg Streaming Media, and David Chadwick Authentication and Security. There were two vacancies for appointed members in the TTC and the intention was that one of the members to be appointed would concern himself with the High Speed Lower Layers area and the other with Video Conferencing. The TTC was chaired by the VP for the Technical Programme, Kees Neggers; within the TEC it had been decided that TEC member Brian Gilmore would continue to take care of the CERT collaboration activities and he was attending the TTC meetings as a guest.

    In its first meeting the new TTC had reviewed the status of the Pilot Projects: 7 have been completed and full reports are available, 3 are still running and 4 new Pilot Projects are starting now. The meeting also confirmed the TTC members' portfolios as described above, and it discussed a number of new initiatives. The minutes of this TTC meeting are available on the TERENA Web site (http://www.terena.nl/ttc/minutes/ttc19991005.html ).

    John Dyer briefly mentioned the meeting of European CERTs which was organised by TERENA on 24 September 1999 (see agenda item 5c below). The minutes of that meeting are available on the TERENA Web site (http://www.terena.nl/tech/projects/cert/certsmeeting990924.html). The meeting had resulted in a number of follow-up actions. The formal structure of those activities had not been decided yet; they might potentially lead to a new Task Force. One of the actions agreed encompassed a new small pilot project, to specify procedures for the accreditation of new CERTs; this pilot project would cost at most 5 kEUR and should deliver its results in December 1999.

    Another new Pilot Project deals with a User Level Network Performance Measuring Tool. It is based on a proposal from the Department of Physics of Utrecht University. The project will produce a visualisation interface for existing network tools, monitoring core network behaviour. The product will be available free to TERENA members. The project will have a budget of 15 kEUR and a duration of 6 months. The tool distinguishes itself from other measurement visualisations in that it presents the "goodput" of the network as experienced by the end user.

    LDAPv3 Deployment is another new small pilot project. It has been agreed in principle between TERENA and DANTE as a development activity for DANTE to support the customers of DANTE's NameFlow service. Many networks are migrating from X.500 to LDAP. An urgent problem is caused by the fact that the QUIPU X.500 implementation is not y2k compliant. This emphasises the need for LDAP co-ordination in Europe and referrals to country-level LDAP servers. A solution will be provided retaining X.500 service after migrating to LDAP.

    John Dyer also mentioned that the latest version of the GNRT would be published in book form by Pearson Education on Friday 22 October 1999 under the title "Internet Users' Guide to Network Resource Tools - 2000 Edition". The book will be available in bookshops for UKP 11.99, but TERENA members can buy the book directly from the publisher at a discounted price of UKP 6.00.

    John Dyer went on the describe a broader concept that had arisen from the plans that had emerged from the discussion meetings on caching, indexing and streaming in Lund in June. People searching for serious scientific information can currently use a number of unrelated routes to the information, e.g. commercial portals, subject information gateways, video archives and institutional Web pages. The solution to this problem of unconnected clouds is to provide a single access point, in the form of an "Academic Portal". Substantial development activities in indexing, media streaming and caching/replication all contribute to this overall concept.

    One of the proposed major projects is the REIS project. It is a proposal being developed as a result from a BoF session in Lund. The purpose is to index European academic and research pages on the Web, providing a classification for easy access. Another major project proposal concerns Streaming. Also this proposal is being developed as a result from a BoF session in Lund; it relates to delivering video and audio content on demand. Six organisations in the TERENA community have already expressed their interest to participate.

    The European research networking community is able to take on the work in the context of the Academic Portal concept because the components are available, the activities build on from previous work, there is an outstanding expertise in the community and there is industrial interest. Motivations for the work are that it is visionary and at the same time supports real user needs, it builds a service that is not available elsewhere and it provides a focus for European cohesion. The concept is definitely not a hype but is do-able now. The case for the Portal concept is that the facility will enable real users and make them and Europe more competitive, it will reduce transatlantic bandwidth load, provides scenarios to become financially self-sustaining, raises the European Internet visibility, and uses existing investment and not new basic development/research. The concept is a modular one with a number of projects that each will provide significant benefits on their own.

    John Dyer mentioned photonics as another interesting area of technological development. Wavelengths are already being used in some national testbeds. There may be a need to better understand the requirements and there is an opportunity to provide closer links with industry in development and experiments. As a result from some contacts with MCI-Worldcom TERENA will organise a workshop with speakers from industry and from the TERENA community to exchange information and ideas.

    The speaker mentioned the External Projects SCIMITAR2 and DESIRE II, which both will end mid 2000, and TEQUILA. TEQUILA is a new project in the IST programme of the European Union's Fifth Framework Programme. It deals with end-to-end Quality of Service and provides architecture, specification, implementation and testing. TERENA will have a very small role in the project as an Associate Contractor responsible for information dissemination; TERENA expects to receive approximately 75 kEUR EU funding for this work. For TERENA the benefits are in relaying the requirements of the TERENA community into the project itself and liaising with Internet2 and the IETF, having access to all deliverables, obtaining financial support for some of the TERENA QoS activities and promoting industrial collaboration. Partners in the project are Alcatel Bell (BE), Algosystems (GR), CNET (FR), IMEC (BE), NTU (GR), Racal Research (UK), UCL (UK) and University of Surrey (UK).

    Next to the companies involved in TEQUILA, TERENA is fostering collaboration with a number of industrial companies, e.g. with IBM on the Academic Portal concept, with Cisco and Nortel in the involvement in NATO workshops and with MCI-Worldcom on the photonics workshop.

    John Dyer mentioned the existing TERENA Task Forces TF-CACHE, which is involved with the currently running Pilot Projects on cache statistics and mirrors, and TF-CHIC, which is working on the REIS project proposal. TF-ETM has been officially dissolved. TF-TANT is extremely busy with experiments. The activities of TF-TANT include DiffServ, RSVP to ATM SVC mapping, QoS monitoring, MPLS, IP over ATM, flow-based monitoring analysis, IP version 6, ATM signalling, multicasting (IP and ATM), policy control (IP and ATM), route monitoring, VPNs, WDM and SDH concatenation issues. This is a very large work package involving many active TF members. The activities are very successful. With the large number of activities and TF members the manageability of the TF work poses a strong challenge; this problem might be looked into after the completion of the current work.

    Summarising, John Dyer explained that the Technical Programme is stronger than before, that the Pilot Project initiative is productive, that there is a diversity of activities and an alignment with members' feedback, that the Programme is collaborating actively with industry and that there are many new initiatives.

  4. SIRCE
  5. Brian Gilmore presented the developments in the area of European CERTs collaboration after the end of the SIRCE pilot. The pilot, which started in May 1997, lastly carried out by UKERNA until its completion in September 1999. In general the responses to the pilot had been positive, and many had expressed their appreciation for the work done and the experiences gained during the past 2.5 years. Nevertheless, in various discussions that came to a conclusion at the Open EuroCERT Meeting and the TERENA GA meeting in Lund, it became clear that it will not be possible now to establish a permanent operational European CERT co-ordination service. This is mainly because the needs of the various networks in Europe and their CERTs are so different that it is not possible to reach consensus on the definition of a single permanent service.

    Still there is a need for and willingness of CERTs in Europe to collaborate on issues of common interest. Such collaboration can take the form of exchange of information, limited work provided by one or more CERTs for the entire European CERT community and joint activities of CERTs who are interested in jointly solving a particular problem. Rather than a model of a centrally provided service, one would then adopt a model of collaborative activities.

    On 24 September 1999 TERENA organised a meeting of European CERTs to discuss these issues. The meeting was very successful with 27 delegates representing 18 organisations/networks from 15 countries attending. The meeting had a thorough discussion of possible work items, set priorities and divided up the work. The JANET CERT will for the time being maintain and update the current information on the Web about existing CERTs. TERENA will set up a mailing list, which will be used among others to discuss a project for the classification of incidents (building on work already started by CERT-NL and JANET CERT) and the establishment of closed and open mailing lists for European CERTs. CERT-NL will contact RIPE about a security contact field in the RIPE database. The establishment of a Trust Broker, a clearing house for tools and software, the organisation of regular CERTs meetings and the organisation of workshops will be discussed in a next meeting, which will be organised by TERENA in January. One task for the Trust Broker would be in the accreditation of (new) CERTs. A small project to formulate procedures for scrutiny leading to accreditation will be funded from TERENA's seed fund and will be completed before the end of the year. All in all this looks like the start of a promising series of activities. It has not been decided yet how these will be formally organised and what TERENA's role will be; a possibility is to take up these activities in the form of one or more TERENA Task Forces.

    Brian Gilmore also mentioned that in the meeting on 24 September 1999 DANTE had made the offer to provide an operational CERT co-ordination service with ¼ or ½ fte, to be paid for from the QUANTUM budget. This proposal was discussed at some length but the meeting had unanimously decided not to take up the offer, among others because experience in the pilot had shown that for such a service at least 3-5 fte's would be necessary.

    Petter Kongshaug (UNINETT) complimented TERENA on the way it had handled the SIRCE pilot and the current follow-up activities. More generally he expressed his satisfaction about the current direction of the Technical Programme.

  6. Fifth Framework Programme
  7. Karel Vietsch and David Williams gave a presentation about recent developments in the implementation of the Fifth Framework Programme. They recalled that late in 1998 the Council of Ministers had decided to make 161 MEUR available in the Fifth Framework Programme for research networking. The preparation of the implementation of this decision had taken much longer than expected, among others because the political problems of the previous European Commission had delayed the appointment of new CEC officials. In the Work Programme of the IST programme two action lines are mentioned for research networking: RN1 and RN2. RN1 deals with the European backbone infrastructure, RN2 covers RTD projects that are of interest to European research networking.

    In July the Commission was seriously discussing with interested parties the idea that the Commission itself would itself organise a call for tender directed at carriers to provide a European research networking backbone as a turnkey project. Very active lobbying, among others by TERENA, had now adverted the danger of this unrealistic approach. It was now expected that the CEC would adopt a 2-step call for tender approach. First the Commission would organise a call for tender to select a suitable entity to organise and manage the backbone provision. DANTE would clearly be in a very strong position to win this tender. Subsequently the selected entity would then combine the funds with the funds supplied by the EU and the NRNs and organise one or more calls for tender for the European infrastructure to be provided.

    Karel Vietsch underlined that the research networking infrastructure had now been recognised as a procurement activity. This meant that it no longer had to be disguised as an RTD project. Therefore the activity would no longer need to be organised as a project with partners and a finite duration, there would no longer be a need to incorporate RTD elements and to submit the results thereof as deliverables to the CEC, and instead of cost statements from a consortium the CEC would now receive invoices from DANTE. This should result in a significant simplification of the administrative arrangements.

    RN2 included among other activities testbeds. It was understood that these should use the infrastructure provided through RN1 unless that was not feasible (in the case of "laboratory testbeds"). However, besides testbeds many more RTD activities relevant for the European research networking community would qualify for RN1, and for other parts of the Work Programme such as IV.2.3. The call for proposals for RN2 will close on 17 January 2000.

    In the discussion it became clear that the current QUANTUM contract would probably be extended for a few months. If developments would go as was expected now, DANTE would be in an excellent position to take the lead in the implementation of RN1. In RN2 TERENA could play a role, although it would not be possible to really co-ordinate the responses to the current call for proposals, which might attract responses from many different organisations. It would be good however if TERENA would start a limited effort comparable to the UPTURN initiative at the start of the Fourth Framework Programme, to assist the wider research networking community in exchanging information and ideas about possible projects and finding partners.

6. TERENA Activity Plan 2000 - GA(99)024

Karel Vietsch gave a presentation on the TEC's plan. He outlined the changing environment in which we are operating. The Internet2 and CANARIE developments in North-America continued to be a source of inspiration but it was becoming increasingly clear that the opportunity and benefits of directly participating from Europe in these activities were not so great whilst the expertise, previous experience and ambitions in various places in Europe were at the same level as in separate Internet2 activities. Hence Europe should build on its own strength and set up itself similar technological development work on middleware and applications. Most of these activities are and will be conducted on a local or a national scale. However for some activities there are significant benefits or economies of scale in working at a European level; here TERENA can play a facilitating role. Another development was in the continuously decreasing prices for telecommunications infrastructure; that development may eventually lead to more freedom of choice for research and education networks and more independence from funding bodies. As to the European Union, as discussed under the previous agenda item there was still some uncertainty about the implementation of the relevant parts of the Fifth Framework Programme, whilst the longer-term role of the EU was unclear. Also there was a clear phenomenon that different countries in Europe are developing at different speeds. Put together, these developments might produce a threat to European coherence, and this will be a challenge to TERENA.

TERENA's mission and the four main categories of activities remain unchanged. TERENA's current status is good. The Secretariat has a full complement of qualified staff. The organisation has regrettably lost some members from Eastern Europe, but there is an increased collaboration with industry, also resulting in some new associate members. With unchanged membership fees the financial position of TERENA gives no reason for immediate concern, but new income will be needed from 2001 onwards. The Technical Programme is growing with new initiatives and increased activities; it should be recognised that transforming good ideas into concrete activities takes a lot of effort.

The TEC has formulated its priorities for TERENA in 2000 as follows:

Peter Kaufmann expressed the view that the TEC's vision on TERENA's status was unrealistic: TERENA was not an organisation comparable to Internet2. TERENA is a small meta-organization and the real work is being done within the NRNs or within the industry. This should be reflected in the self-presentation. He disagreed therefore with Kees Neggers' statement in his e-mail before this meeting that "joint European activities, especially in the middleware and application areas, are extremely important" for the ongoing development of the Internet. He felt that this was a big overestimation of the TERENA organisation. It should be obvious that a technical programme with about 100 K euro per year would add only a small piece of work to what is happening elsewhere (within NRN or industry). Karel Vietsch replied that the UCAID and TERENA organisations and environments were comparable in some respects and not in others. Both organisations had similar staff sizes but the personnel, travel and PR budgets of UCAID were many times bigger. Most importantly, in the U.S. Internet2 had become a household name making it attractive for interesting local and regional technical activities to manifest themselves under that name. That was not the case with TERENA in Europe nor should TERENA strive to acquire that position. What was similar however in the U.S. and Europe, was the substantial talent and knowledge of people eager to work on Internet2-type developments. Much of this is done at a local or national level, but where working at a European level brings benefits TERENA can play a facilitating role.

Geoff McMullen underlined the importance of European collaboration and found TERENA's plans not unrealistic. Peter Kaufmann replied that the technical development work is now done in the commercial world. Others pointed out however that many essential developments still come from the research community (on itself or in collaboration with industry), both in Europe and in the U.S. David Williams felt that the research and education community can indeed still make an important difference, and the past had shown that important changes often come from small projects.

D12-03 The GA unanimously accepted the TERENA Activity Plan 2000.

7. TERENA Financial Matters

  1. Reconfirmation of contribution categories of National Members - GA(99)025
  2. Lajos Bálint presented the proposal to keep all the National Members in the same category, based on the agreed algorithm.

    D12-04 The GA decided that all TERENA National Members will be in the same membership category in 2000 as they were in 1999.

  3. Projected outlook 1999
  4. Lajos Bálint presented the outlook. Even though there were some discrepancies in individual items, on the whole the outlook was almost balanced. He pointed out that around 55 kEUR set aside for the Pilot Project Seed Fund would probably be carried forward to next year.

    The GA noted this information.

  5. Budget 2000 and membership fees 2000
  6. Lajos Bálint presented the budget, which was at a level that was about 10% below the 1999 level. The main difference was lower expenditure for the Technical Programme, but it would be able to spend the funds carried over from previous years.

    Several delegates felt that the chosen presentation was not sufficiently clear, and that it would be better to show the carry-over from 1999 and the other amounts available for the Technical Programme more clearly. Therefore, a revised presentation of the proposal was presented as follows:


    1998 result

    1999 budget

    1999 outlook

    2000 proposed budget


    Personnel costs










    Office running costs





    Travel and meetings










    Financial expenses





    Representation interests





    Technical Programme





    Depreciation debtors





    Project results





    Other expenses






















    Charged hours + other





    From Special Projects Fund











    + 82


    + 57

    - 55

    Peter Kaufmann modified the suggestion that he had made by e-mail to propose on behalf of DFN to lower the fee from EUR 4477 to EUR 4200 per unit. He felt that this would bring a better balance between cost and the direct benefits to members. He pointed out that the decrease of the number of members had resulted in a loss of income from membership contributions. Therefore, he felt that both the staff and the central budget needed to be reduced, and consequently the membership contributions should be reduced.
    The proposal was seconded by Jan Torreele (BELNET).

    In the discussion, several delegates pointed to the importance of supporting especially the Technical Programme and therefore did not support the DFN proposal. Others pointed out that a 10% reduction in the fees would lead to a greater than 10% reduction in the actual activities. Several delegates stressed the need for making the results of TERENA's work more visible and for targeting the activities to meet member needs in clearly identifiable ways; some felt that the fee was significant and pointed out that they needed good arguments to defend paying the fee. Others again voiced that in their assessment they were getting more out of TERENA than they were investing in it. Marko Bonac pointed out that the current order of magnitude of the fee posed a real problem for certain less developed countries.

    The DFN amendment was put to the vote. 12 votes were cast in favour (DE, BE), 44 votes against (DK, EE, HU, LU, NL, NO, PL, SE, CH, TR, UK) and 12 votes abstained (HR, IE, LT, PT, SK). The amendment was therefore rejected.

    After that, the proposal to keep the membership fee unit at EUR 4477 and to adopt the budget 2000 as shown above was put to the vote. This proposal was accepted, with 53 votes in favour (HR, DK, EE, HU, LT, LU, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK, SE, CH, TR, UK), 12 votes against (DE, BE) and 3 votes abstaining (IE).

    D12-05 The GA adopted the revised budget proposal for the year 2000.
    D12-06 The GA set the membership fee for the year 2000 at EUR 4477 per unit.

  7. Appointment TERENA Auditors
  8. D12-07 The GA re-appointed the firm of Horlings, Brouwer & Horlings as auditors for the TERENA accounts for the years 2000 and 2001.

8. Conferences and Workshops

Pedro Veiga and Bert van Pinxteren presented the status of the preparations for the TERENA Networking Conference 2000. A first meeting had taken place of the Programme Committee, which was chaired by Claudio Allocchio. The call for papers had been published. A suitable venue had been found and a local conference bureau had been contracted. Portugal Telecom would be the Main Sponsor of the event, and work was ongoing in attracting other sponsors. Everything seemed to be under control for another successful conference.

Karel Vietsch reported that at the same time and at the same venue, TERENA would host the Fifth International Web Caching and Content Distribution Workshop, thus reducing the overhead for both events and increasing the likelihood of their success. The Programme Committee for the workshop would be chaired by Pei Cao and Peter Danzig. A call for papers would be published in November. Sponsors were being approached.

Karel Vietsch also reported that the NATO Workshop in Tartu was now being planned for February next year. There would be caching and indexing workshops in February and May next year within the framework of the DESIRE II project. TERENA would like to organise a workshop aimed at the Mediterranean region, but was still looking for funding for this.

9. Liaisons

  1. CCIRN
  2. Karel Vietsch presented recent developments in CCIRN, which had held its last annual meeting in San Jose, California on 26 June 1999. The next meeting will be in Yokohama in July 2000. The CCIRN remains an important forum for intercontinental information exchange. In addition, a number of working groups are active. The most recent meetings had been those of the Mbone/Multicast Working Group in Oslo in July and of the new Digital Video Working Group in Seattle in October.

  3. UCAID and Internet 2
  4. Karel Vietsch recalled that TERENA was now not only an MoU partner of UCAID but also an Affiliate Member. The number UCAID's MoU partners was now increasing rapidly, in part because of the recent agreement between DANTE and UCAID, to which a large number of NRENs had also signed up. He presented an oral report on the recent Internet2 Fall Meeting in Seattle and a number of adjacent meetings. He announced that full written reports on these meetings would be sent to the GA mailing list shortly.

    His overall impressions were that the Internet2 activities were now clearly concentrating on the areas of Digital Video, Network Storage and Quality of Service. There is a large overlap between these three fields of work. Within these areas work is progressing and has become more down-to-earth. Internet2's publicity is now also more focussed on these demonstrable applications and the necessary middleware and less on more futuristic prospects.

    Stanislaw Starzak, who had been at the meeting as well, remarked that there was now a lot of stress on building a 'computational grid', as well as a 'services grid'. David Williams added that there was now also a so-called Grid Forum, which sees itself as a sort of IETF for future middleware developments.

  6. Karel Vietsch gave a presentation on some of the developments around the establishment of ICANN and its various bodies. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions now performed under U.S. government contract by IANA and other entities. There are many important and controversial issues currently under discussion, such as new registrars, the dispute with Network Solutions, Inc., the Uniform Dispute Resolution, and possibly future action on new gTLD's. However in his presentation Karel Vietsch proposed to concentrate on ICANN's structure, positions, elections and ways to have influence.

    The ICANN structure has three supporting organisations: the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO), the Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO) and the Protocol Supporting Organisation (PSO). ICANN itself is governed by a Board of 19 Directors. One of them is the President, a position currently held by Esther Dyson as Interim Chairman. Nine others are Directors at large; for the moment these seats are filled by the Initial Board members that were initially invited on behalf of the late Jon Postel. Nine other Directors are to be appointed by the Supporting Organisations (3 each); the elections for these posts were currently taking place and were to be completed before 1 November 1999.

    The ASO is based on collaboration of the three Regional Internet Registries: ARIN, RIPE NCC and APNIC. The ASO is governed by an Address Council of 9 members, 3 from each region. The European members are Sabine Jaume (FR), Petter Holen (NO) and Wilfried Woeber (AT). The appointment by the ASO of 3 ICANN Directors had not been finalised yet; the only European candidate was Rob Blokzijl (NL).

    The PSO is based on an MoU between the IETF, the W3 Consortium, the ITU and ETSI. Each of these organisations appoints two members of the Protocol Council. The appointment by the PSO of 3 ICANN Directors had not been finalised yet.

    The DNSO is the most complicated Supporting Organisation. It consists of 7 constituencies: ccTLD registries; commercial and business entities; gTLD registries; ISP and connectivity providers; non-commercial domain name holders; registrars; trademark and other IPR interests. The establishment of an 8th constituency, for individual domain name holders, was under discussion. Each constituency is to appoint 3 members of the Domain Name Council. The results of the elections by the DNSO of 3 ICANN Directors had not yet been fully announced yet, but it was already known that the two candidates from the European research networking community, Dany Vandromme and Stefano Trumpy, had not been elected.

    Karel Vietsch explained that initially the TEC had decided that TERENA should not get actively involved in ICANN matters, since the interests of the TERENA members would be either in the address space area or concerning ccTLD's. In those areas interests are represented by the RIPE NCC and CENTR associations respectively, and the TERENA members concerned are also members of those associations. However TERENA had joined an initiative from ISOC to prevent the non-commercial domain name holder constituency (NCDNHC) being hijacked. Hence TERENA was now a member of the NCDNHC and was following developments there.

    The NCDNC has less than 10 members from Europe, and is therefore not at all representative for the hundreds of thousands non-commercial organisations that hold a domain name. This lack of representativeness is a more general problem and one of the reasons why in August only a Provisional Domain Name Council was elected, and new elections will take place in February 2000. The NCDNHC representatives on the Domain Name Council do not include a European, but Dany Vandromme is serving as a member of the board of the NCDNHC.

    Karel Vietsch summarised the issues for discussion as follows. There is not a large participation from Europe, but by mobilising the TERENA membership our community could easily have a large influence in the NCDNHC and elect one of its people to the Domain Name Council in February. But how deeply should the European research networking organisations get involved, and what role was there to play for TERENA? He pointed out that fulfilling an office in the various bodies is very time consuming, ranging from ½ day a week in simply following some of the developments, via 2 days a week for being a member of the Domain Name Council, to 3 or 4 days a week for being a ICANN Director.

    Pedro Veiga gave as his assessment that although this was potentially an important area for NRENs, getting involved in it would require a lot of work. Geoff McMullen suggested that a fuller discussion of the topic would be useful, but that this would require a separate meeting. A straw poll showed that several NRENs would send people to such a meeting. Former President Stefano Trumpy would be a person to consult on the preparations of such a meeting. After some further discussion, it was decided that:

    A12-01 The TERENA Secretariat will organise before the end of 1999 a meeting for representatives of TERENA members in which more information on ICANN matters will be presented and members will discuss how deeply to get involved in these developments and which role TERENA should play.

    In the meantime, it would be useful if all NRENs would sign up as members of the NCDNHC (in as far as legally possible), so that their voting power could be mobilised if needed.

    A12-02 The TERENA Secretariat will inform the members how to join the NCDNHC, and members then to join the NCDNHC (if legally possible).

10. TERENA Secretariat Matters

The TERENA staff consists of:

Karel Vietsch Secretary General
John Dyer Chief Technical Officer
Kevin Meynell Project Development Officer
Yuri Demchenko Project Development Officer
Valentino Cavalli Project Development Officer
Alex de JoodeIT Support Officer (part-time)
Peter Heijmens Visser Office Automation Officer (on call)
Bert van Pinxteren Chief Administrative Officer
Nicola Warren PR&Conference Officer
Carol de Groot-Crone Secretary
Wilma Overdevest Bookkeeper (part-time)

11. Next meetings

GA13 will take place in Lisbon, on 25 and 26 May 2000.

Offers for hosting GA14 (in the autumn of 2000) would be welcomed at the Secretariat.

Geoff McMullen questioned the need for two physical meetings of the GA a year. David Williams agreed that the suggestion was interesting, suggesting that the TEC should give it some thought.

12. Any other business and close

Geoff McMullen, referring to an earlier remark by Lajos Bálint, suggested that a regular report with updated data on the European research and education networking organisations, their structure, funding, budgets, infrastructure and technical development work would be very useful. Dai Davies reported that as part of the preparations of the successor to TEN-155, some work was being done to collect information on backbone requirements of NRENs.

A12-03 The Secretariat is to prepare a project for collecting basic data about the European NRENs.

Vesna Vrga reported that the first CARNET Users Conference had been a success and expressed her gratitude for the participation of TERENA staff member Valentino Cavalli. She also mentioned that CEENet had now been set up as a new legal entity and that the new CEENet would apply for TERENA membership, replacing the old CEENet; it would also be possible for TERENA to become a CEENet member.

David Williams encouraged members to share their reports on important meetings that they had attended with the Secretariat, which could then distribute them to other members.

David Williams reported that he was involved in the one-off "HiBEER" workshop organised by the Academia Europaea, the European Science Foundation and the European Conference of Rectors. It would be a small workshop in November aimed at increasing the lobbying effort from users for a high-bandwidth infrastructure.

David Williams then thanked the Turkish hosts for their excellent work, which was greeted by applause.


I. List of Decisions and Actions resulting from the 12th TERENA General Assembly meeting

II. List of participants at the 12th TERENA General Assembly meeting

Annex I

List of Decisions and Actions resulting from the 12th TERENA General Assembly meeting


D12-01 - The GA unanimously approved the minutes of the 11th GA meeting(GA(99)015), Lund, 10-11 June 1999, without change.
D12-02 - The GA admitted INFN as the National Member for Italy on behalf of GARR, replacing CNR.
D12-03 - The GA unanimously accepted the TERENA Activity Plan 2000.
D12-04 - The GA decided that all TERENA National Members will be in the same membership category in 2000 as they were in 1999.
D12-05 - The GA adopted the revised budget proposal for the year 2000.
D12-06 - The GA set the membership fee for the year 2000 at EUR 4477 per unit.
D12-07 - The GA re-appointed the firm of Horlings, Brouwer & Horlings as auditors for the TERENA accounts for the years 2000 and 2001.


A12-01 - The TERENA Secretariat will organise before the end of 1999 a meeting for representatives of TERENA members in which more information on ICANN matters will be presented and members will discuss how deeply to get involved in these developments and which role TERENA should play.
A12-02 - The TERENA Secretariat will inform the members how to join the NCDNHC, and members then to join the NCDNHC (if legally possible).
A12-03 - The Secretariat is to prepare a project for collecting basic data about the European NRENs.

Annex II

List of participants at the 12th TERENA General Assembly meeting, Istanbul, 21-22 October 1999.

National members

Belgium, BELNET Jan Torreele
Croatia, CARNet Vesna Vrga (by proxy)
Denmark, UNI-C Ole Kjærgaard
Estonia, EENet Mihkel Kraav
Germany, DFN Peter Kaufmann
Hungary, HUNGARNET Lajos Bálint (Treasurer)
Ireland, HEANET John Dyer (by proxy)
Lithuania, LITNET Vytautas Reklaitis
Luxembourg, RESTENA Antoine Barthel
Netherlands, SURFnet Brian Gilmore (by proxy) (TEC member)
Norway, UNINETT Petter Kongshaug
Poland, POL-34 Stanislaw Starzak
Portugal, FCCN Pedro Veiga
Slovakia, SANET Jaroslav Bobovsky
Slovenia, ARNES Marko Bonac
Sweden, SUNET Arne Sundström
Switzerland, SWITCH Marko Bonac (by proxy)
Turkey, ULAKBIM Tuncay Birand
United Kingdom, UKERNA Geoff McMullen

Associate members

DANTE Dai Davies


David Williams (President), Tural Kaptan, Erdogan Yilmaz (both ULAKBIM), Bert van Pinxteren, Karel Vietsch (both TERENA Secretariat).

Apologies from members not represented:

Bob Aiken (Cisco), Brian Carpenter (IBM), Markus Sadeniemi (FUNET), Olivier Martin (CERN), Andre Choo (Teleglobe), Victor Castelo and Manuel Rincon (RedIRIS), Jan Gruntorád (CESNET and CEENet), Margita Kon-Popovska (MARNET), Siavash Shahshahani (IPM).