Reference Committee Minutes
Smi Network Connectivity Project
25 February 2004
Birgitta Allerberg - sent regrets
Hkan Alm - present
Vinton Cerf - sent regrets
Avri Doria - present
Mats Elg - present
Per Gunningberg - present
Fritz-ke Kuoljok - present
Anders stman - present
Bjrn Pehrson - sent regrets
Olov Scheln - present
Susanne Spik - present
Helena Zimmer - present
Maria Udn SNC Project Manager - present
Thank you to MCI for providing and paying for the tele-conference facility.
The agenda was accepted, though note was made that Helena Zimmer would speak on Nutek financing and its possible relation to SNC funding.
Each of the members of the RC introduced themselves and spoke briefly on their role in the SNC project.
Overview of activities and responsibilities
o The RC is established as an integral part of the SNC project by agreement with Vinnova, the project seed funding source.
o The RC advises the Project manager on issues that include: technical plans, budget and funding.
o The project team is responsible for reporting project status to the RC on a quarterly basis.
o The RC is composed of representatives from all of the institutions involved in the project, the intended user community and industry experts.
o The RC meets twice yearly, though it can continue to remain active through discussions over the email list.
Question of whether RC meeting minutes should be publicly available on SNC website:
o The RC was unanimous in its view that the minutes should be publicly available on the SNC web site.
o There was a concern that the minutes should be clear in stating that the RC made recommendations and not decisions. Maria pointed out that Vinnova requirements for the funding include a Reference Committee in the role of an oversight body.
Mailing List
o A mailing list has been created at snc-rc@same.net .
Avri discussed the current plans and milestones for the project. The report is available at: snc.sapmi.net/Status/status-25-feb-04.htm)
Several Issues were brought up during the discussion:
The relay process sounds similar to the uucp (www.uucp.org) network which predated the current Internet. While the design of SNC is different, there are enough similarities between the two store and forward networks that a lot can be learned from the work they did and because of its open source nature, it may serve as a source for some of the solutions.
Uppsala University expressed an interest in involvement in the implementation of the Prophet routing protocol. They not only have an ad-hoc test bed, but have experience in the integration of ad-hoc code into the Linux kernel.
Uppsala University expressed a strong interest in the Web cache work and suggested several sources of starting material. This aspect of the project will be discussed with them when Avri is in Sweden in May
A question was asked about who was responsible for all the work that is not yet staffed. Responsibility for staffing this work rests with Maria as project manager and with Avri as technical consultant. Of course they rely of the members of the RC, especially those at Universities to help staff these projects with MA and Ph.D. students.
Maria reviewed the 2004 budget with the committee.
One issue has to do with funding the construction of the Laponia Hotspot, i.e. equipment costs for the hotspots. The original intent is for this to be co-funded between the SNC project and the Nutek funded companion project Development of Smic Enterprising with the Aid of New Information and Communication Technology (below referred to as SET). However, the Nutek funding is available only on terms of co-funding and the decisions from the approached co-funders have been delayed. The last decision needed is now awaited from The County Administrative Board of Norrbotten. The funding requirements for the Laponia Hotspot project are immediate.
There is still a need for more funding in order to actually build the prototype systems and network. The current base level Vinnova funding essentially funds the universities for the development support by their students and funds the part time efforts of the technical consultant. It does not cover the cost of the equipment needed to build the relays and hotspots.
As the universities take on different tasks, there may be a need to transfer budget from one university to another. The first instance may involve Uppsala depending on their level of involvement in the implementation of the Prophet routing protocol in 2004.
As reported in the budget discussion, there is a need to continue applying for funds to support the under-budgeted parts of the program.
o One possibility is applying for EU Objective1 funding, and funding from The County Administrative Board of Norrbotten in the spring
Funding for the SET user project, which will be owned by The Rural Economy and Agricultural Society of Norrbotten, to develop user competence and to develop business opportunity has been delayed. This funding was intended to cover the expense of training for local participators of SNC as well as to partially fund the building of Hotspots in areas where it would contribute to the business development goals and the educational goals.
o From Nutek, the SET user project has received a 1.1 Million SEK grant but this business development funding needs to be matched by other funding. The current proposal for the matching funds has been sent to EU Objective 1 Spmi North which is administered by the Swedish Smi Parliament, and The County Administrative Board of Norrbotten. The target date for approval of the proposals was the end of December 2003 but there has been a delay in processing these applications. Since the Nutek money is slated for use in 2004, these monies will be forfeit if matching funds are not obtained.
o Given the urgency of obtaining matching funding a Plan B was proposed to the RC. This would involve rewriting some of the SET user project so that the SNC Vinnova funding could be defined as the co-fund for the money from the business development agency. Specific elements of the plans include:
Provide the SNC project with 100.000 SEK for setting up of hotspots
Use 340.000 SEK to develop competence training programs in the setting up and maintenance of Open Network Hotspots
Develop common platform for Smi entrepreneurial enterprise
Set up a technology participation program with Lule University of Technology
Develop new business opportunities in Smi enterprise with communication technology.
o There is an urgency in deciding whether The Rural Economy and Agricultural Society of Norrbotten goes with its original plan or Plan B for SET. They need to make a decision by the end of February on whether to stay with the original proposal or to move to Plan B
One of the reasons Vinnova funded this project is the engaged user community involved in SNC. This community has requested better ICT access and wants to be involved in the SNC process.
When applying for the needed additional funding for the SNC technical research it is possible to merge this with applications for further development of the technology transfer components. Presently, however, it is of higher priority, to see that the project planned by The Rural Economy and Agricultural Society of Norrbotten gets started. Maria will present additional ideas during the spring.
The next meeting is planned for 6 months from now. If possible the SNC project team would like to arrange next meeting onsite in Jokkmokk
A meeting would preferably be combined with seminars and possibly lectures and workshops on topics addressed by SNC. Examples of topics includes:
o Connectivity for Communication Challenged Areas,
o Delay Tolerant Networking,
o Applications Development for Enterprises in Sparsely Populated Areas,
o Commercialization and Participation.
A meeting in Jokkmokk could be combined with seminars/lectures in Lule, at Lule University of Technology. The event would suitably be used for attracting interest from media and co-operation with local and regional organizations will be secured to ensure the technology transfer and participative quality of SNC.
The best result for SNC is probably reached if the first on site meeting is arranged during 2004. With the climate conditions in mind, summer or early autumn appear as best choices to this first meeting. To allow time for scheduling and for solving the economic details September 2004 or late August 2004 end up as the best suggestions for meeting dates, possibly early October. Duration of the first meeting might be for example four days starting with dinner and formal RC meeting first day, ending with breakfast, shorter public event and departure fourth day.
Questions that will need to answered by the RC members before making a final decision regarding an on-site meeting:
Will it be possible for you to attend a RC meeting in Jokkmokk at some point during the suggested period?
Would you like to take the opportunity to arrange or taking part in arranging an event, possibly a public event, during the meeting?
Discussions and planning can continue o the email list. There is also a need to solve the funding issues of such a meeting. This can perhaps be done in cooperation with Jokkmokk municipality and Lulea University.
There were no other issues and the meeting was adjourned.