GA(03)033r1
Draft minutes of the 20th GA meeting
23-24 October 2003
Copenhagen, Denmark.
1. Welcome and Apologies
The President, Dorte Olesen, welcomed the participants and in particular those who attended a GA meeting for the first time. All present introduced themselves briefly.
Dany Vandromme (RENATER), Robert Sultana and Victor Buttigieg (UoM), Brian Carpenter and David Martin (IBM), Jan Weglarz and Stanislaw Starzak (PCSS), Yves Poppe (Teleglobe), Geert-Jan Spelde (Level3), Jean-Marc Uzé (Juniper), Mário Campolargo (EU), Jan Torreele (BELNET), Sæþór Jónsson and Jón Ingi Einarsson (RHnet), Tugrul Yilmaz (ULAKBIM), Kees Neggers and Boudewijn Nederkoorn (SURFnet), Rimantas Kavaliunas and Petras Sulcas (LITNET)had all conveyed their apologies for the 20th GA meeting.
Artur Binczewski represented PCSS (Poland) with proxy.
Inara Opmane represented LATNET (Latvia) with proxy.
Erik-Jan Bos represented SURFnet (Netherlands) with proxy.
The number of votes represented was 92 out of a total of 119 (before agenda item 4a), respectively 120 (after agenda item 4a).
The list of participants is annexed to these minutes.
2.Approval of Agenda, GA(03)022
The agenda was approved as circulated.
(See for the accompanying slides on administrative issues.)
3.Minutes and Action List of previous GA meeting
a.Minutes of the 19th TERENA General Assembly, Zagreb – GA(03)021r1
Sabine Jaume suggested that under agenda item 4b, the word ‘learning’ should be replaced by ‘education’. This was agreed. Bert van Pinxteren noted that Mário Campolargo should be added to the list of people who had sent their apologies.
D20-01The General Assembly unanimously approved the minutes of the 19th GA meeting (GA(03)021r1), Zagreb, 22-23 May 2003, with the suggested two changes.
b.GA Action List update
A19-01 The Secretariat is to distribute the new brochure on NREN relationships with Industry to the members and request their comments.
This had been done. Claudio Allocchio reported that he had received a few comments and that it was still possible to send comments for a short period longer. He would be preparing a final edition soon.
A19-02 All NRENs to review and correct their data in the Limited Edition of the Compendium by the 5th of June.
This had been done.
A19-03 The TEC is to convey in a letter to the ISOC Board of Trustees that ISOC should concentrate its activities on providing support for the IETF and the IAB.
This had been done. The letter had been received positively by the ISOC BoT.
4.Membership matters
a.Admission of new members – GA(03)023
D20-02The GA unanimously decided to admit the University of Malta as the National Member of TERENA for Malta, in category 1, with a phase-in discount of 75% in year 1 and 50% in year 2.
The GA noted that Mr. Robert Sultana would be the representative and Mr. Victor Buttigieg the substitute representative.
b.Changes in membership – GA(03)025
The GA noted that the Consortium GARR had recently been established as a legal entity. It had now applied for TERENA membership in its own right, taking the place of INFN, who currently held the membership on behalf of GARR.
D20-03The GA unanimously decided to admit Consortium GARR as the National Member for Italy, replacing INFN.
The GA noted that Mr. Enzo Valente would be the representative and Ms. Claudia Battista the substitute representative – GA(03)026.
Bernhard Fabianek stated that the European Commission had reviewed its observerships at various bodies and had decided that it would discontinue its participation as a permanent observer in TERENA. He stressed that the EC would remain open to information exchange and collaboration in other ways and thanked the General Assembly and its members for the good collaboration. Dorte Olesen expressed her appreciation on behalf of TERENA for the collaboration and felt that the reasons for the EC’s decision deserved respect.
c.Changes in representatives
Dorte Olesen thanked the outgoing representatives for their contributions to the work of the association.
d.Outstanding membership fees – GA(03)028
The Treasurer, Agathoclis Stylianou, reported that fee situation was especially worrying for IPM (Iran). If this organisation did not pay at least its outstanding fees for one year before the time of the next GA meeting, the termination of its TERENA membership would have to be proposed.
The GA noted the information and urged all members to pay their outstanding fees.
5.Technical Programme – GA(03)031
Claudio Allocchio gave an overview of the current state of the TERENA Technical Programme (see his slides at He elaborated on the Special Interest Areas and presented the current composition of the TERENA Technical Committee. He then presented an overview of the work of the different Task Forces. This work had been described in greater detail by Task Force representatives, in presentations immediately before the GA meeting. He also gave an overview of the current TERENA projects. He pointed to the relevance of the TERENA Compendium and the recently-established TF-PR for the technical work of TERENA. He ended with brief descriptions of the new FP6 project proposals that TERENA was currently a partner in (EGEE, GN2, GARDEN, GRANDE and MOME). He mentioned that most of these projects would be only 50% funded, requiring an additional contribution from TERENA’s side. This was especially the case for the EGEE project; however, the additional costs for this project would remain within the limits set earlier by the GA.
6.Member Development Programme – GA(03)024
Marko Bonac presented some information about the TERENA initiative for sharing information about the opportunities offered by the EU Structural Funds, in particular for the Accession States; he mentioned the distribution list, (see slides at
Valentino Cavalli and John Dyer then presented brief updates on their recent visits to Lithuania and Latvia. Responding to a question from Jorge Sanchez-Papaspiliou, Valentino Cavalli clarified that more such visits would be possible, but that the Secretariat did not want to force itself on NRENs. Whenever appropriate, NRENs would be asked if they would be interested in such a visit. He felt that a next visit might take place to an NREN in South Eastern Europe, making use of the experiences from the recent NATO workshop in Varna.
Agathoclis Stylianou pointed out that some of the NRENs that might be able to profit from a visit or other assistance did not participate in GA meetings. Dorte Olesen recalled that some budget for Member Development had been included in the GN2 proposal. Claudio Allocchio added that TERENA could also help by organising visits from one NREN to another one.
7.TERENA Activity Plan 2004 and Planning Cycle – GA(03)029
Dorte Olesen gave a brief introduction to the Activity Plan 2004, noting that much would depend on the outcome of the current FP6 round of proposals. The basic work of TERENA, as carried out for example by the Task Forces and for the Compendium, would in any case continue.
Claudio Allocchio then presented the TEC’s current thinking and proposals for the TERENA planning cycle (see slides at He reviewed the decisions taken at the GA meeting of October 2002 and the experiences with the planning cycle so far. Based on those, he proposed to re-try the Call for Ideas and Proposals next year, but to use it also in preparation of new Joint Research Activities, that would be part of the GN2 project. Ideas for such activities would often come from the work in the Task Forces anyway. He felt that at least one joint meeting of TEC and TTC was useful. He felt that at the moment, a rigid planning scheme was not possible or desirable for TERENA.
Bernhard Fabianek felt that the plans as presented could be complemented by some indication of what the next priorities would be for the NREN community, not only from the technical point of view, but also from that of the users. Claudio Allocchio pointed out that the proposed structure would lead to new ideas being brought forward. Others felt that in future, TERENA should look into these things more.
Karel Vietsch mentioned as an example the current developments in the area of Lambdas, in particular the GLIF initiative. TERENA was invited to the Lambda Workshops and being kept informed and could potentially play a role in bringing people together and sharing information. However, it was not yet clear what TERENA’s role would be and it was therefore not elaborately described in the Activity Plan.
D20-04The GA accepted the TEC Activity Plan 2004 and the amended Planning Cycle by unanimous consent.
8.Financial Matters
a.Reconfirmation of contribution categories of National Members – GA(03)029
D20-05The GA decided that all TERENA National Members will be in the same membership category in 2004 as they were in 2003.
b.Projected outlook 2003 – FIN(03)012
The Treasurer, Agathoclis Stylianou, explained that the outlook was better than budget mostly because there would most likely be more project income than foreseen and those projects were being implemented with staff already budgeted for. He noted that there would most likely be a deficit at the end of the year. Cash flow planning was becoming more important for the organisation.
c.Budget 2004 and membership fees 2004 – GA(03)030
Agathoclis Stylianou presented the budget. He pointed out that the EGEE and MOME projects were currently in the negotiation stage; income and expenditure for those projects had been taken into account when preparing the budget. The GN2, GARDEN and GRANDE proposals had just been submitted and had not yet been taken into account in the budget proposal. Because of the funding mechanism for the projects, part of the deficit incurred in 2004 would be recovered in later years. The TEC had looked ahead at what would happen over the next few years if all the currently submitted projects would be approved. This would lead to a more difficult cash flow situation in the immediate future, but to small surpluses in later years; the overall result would be a lowering of TERENA’s reserves . This aspect is considered crucial for the financial viability of TERENA. He warned that it was looking highly likely that the membership fees would need to be reconsidered, depending on the exact developments in future years.
Lajos Bálint wondered if members who were not involved in any of these projects would not resist if they would be asked to contribute more because of the deficits incurred through such projects. He was not against the new activities that were being proposed, but might have to reconsider if they would lead to an increase in the membership fees. Valentino Cavalli pointed out that in all of the currently submitted project proposals, TERENA’s role was one of dissemination and sharing of information. Therefore, many of the NRENs who were not directly involved in these projects would profit especially from TERENA’s involvement in them.
Karel Vietsch pointed to inflation as an underlying reason for increasing deficits: the membership fees had not been increased since 2001 but costs were increasing every year because of inflation. Agathoclis Stylianou noted that level of the membership fee was being discussed in the TEC every year and that at one point, an increase would again be necessary.
Olivier Martin wondered if a bank loan could help ease any temporary cash flow problems; Karel Vietsch replied that TERENA would not be able to provide enough collateral for such a loan.
Lajos Bálint felt that a fee increase because of inflation was different from and perhaps more easily justified than a fee increase in order to make up for the deficit in EU-funded projects. He asked if any cash flow projections had been done. Dorte Olesen said that the TEC had looked at the situation carefully and would continue to do so; Agathoclis Stylianou confirmed that the Secretariat had spent considerable time preparing projections based on current activities and member requirements. This would help clarify the situation in the near future. Karel Vietsch added that the payment behaviour of the EU is difficult to predict and has a large influence on the cash flow – pointing to the need for a healthy level of reserves.
Claudio Allocchio said that TERENA was changing into an organisation that was involved in larger projects than before, but that is was therefore also taking larger risks. Agathoclis Stylianou added that next year, after the decisions on the projects were taken, the TEC would be able to present a more complete picture.
Lajos Bálint was surprised that even50%-funded projects would not have a positive impact on TERENA’s finances. His reasoning was that after all, this was an external coverage of half the expenses. Agathoclis Stylianou and Dorte Olesen replied that to the extent that 50%-funded projects could be implemented with existing staff, they contributed to the financial health of the organisation. However, they noted that if all projects would be approved it would not be possible to implement all of them with existing staff. The largest of the new 50%-funded projects was the EGEE project, and it was expected that some additional staff, notably in the external relations area, would be needed to implement this project. There was some discussion about the funding rules of the EU for this type of project: Jorge Sanchez-Papaspiliou wondered if 100% funding would not be possible after all and if so, felt that TERENA should investigate the matter further. Others replied that this matter had been fully investigated for EGEE and that TERENA was getting the best funding conditions that the rules allowed. They also recalled that the General Assembly had already approved a substantial financial contribution to the EGEE project from TERENA’s own resources; Agathoclis Stylianou requested that the GA take careful consideration of this, as an example of what the impact could be on TERENA’s resources of the organisation’s involvement in large 50%-funded projects. For the future, TERENA should continue to strive for the best possible funding scheme for FP6 projects. Valentino Cavalli added that for GARDEN and GRANDE, if approved, some of TERENA’s activities would be 100% funded.
Agathoclis Stylianou thanked the Secretariat for its good support in preparing the financial documents.
D20-06The GA adopted the proposed budget for 2004 by unanimous consent.
D20-07The GA decided unanimously to keep the membership fee unit for 2004 unchanged at € 4,700.
9.Conferences and Workshops
(See the slides presented by Shirley Wood at Shirley Wood recalled that the TNC/CUC 2003 Conference in Zagreb had been a great success and that the model of a joint TERENA-CARNet Conference had worked very well. She predicted that the TNC 2004 in Rhodes would be very good as well and reported that the preparations, both on the organisational and on the programme side, were well under way.
Dorte Olesen thanked Shirley Wood for her excellent work with the past conference, and likewise thanked the other people involved and CARNet for the impressive effort – she agreed with Shirley that the prospects for the TNC 2004 looked very good, but remarked that it would be a really demanding task to surpass the success of TNC2003.
Bernhard Fabianek recalled an earlier suggestion by Dany Vandromme to co-ordinate the European participation in research networking conferences worldwide. Karel Vietsch recalled that currently, the regional conferences that were the prime events in the NREN world were – besides the TNCs - the APAN Meetings in Asia/Pacific, the Internet2 Meetings in the US and the CANARIE Advanced Networks Workshops in Canada. The organisations from the different continents come together and exchange information in the CCIRN, which meets every year at one of the regional Conferences. TERENA is interested in presenting the work of European NRENs and of TERENA at the Conferences of the other regions and likewise invites initiatives from other continents at the TNCs.
10.Liaisons
a.DANTE
Dorte Olesen reported that collaboration with DANTE had been good in the preparation of the GN2 proposal. Claudio Allocchio reported that the study into TERENA-DANTE collaboration had suffered some delays because of the high workload related to the GN2 proposal preparation. However, he had recently received new inputs from DANTE. The study was now looking at mid-term collaboration. Later on, it would be complemented by a chapter on long-term collaboration. Claudio Allocchio hoped that the part on mid-term collaboration would be finished by Christmas.
b.NREN PC
Dorte Olesen reported that, as decided in the last GA meeting, TERENA had applied to join the NREN Consortium. This has been received very positively by the NREN PC, andTERENA was nowbeing invited to all the meetings of the NREN PC and was now receiving all the documents. TERENA was expecting to formally join the Consortium Agreement for the GN2 project.
11.Secretariat Matters
Karel Vietsch briefly presented the current state of affairs. He reported that some additional staff would most probably be needed, first of all in the area of external relations. The TEC had approved that one external relations position should be advertised soon, with expected starting date in March 2004.