Building Identity Trust Federations Conference Call

January 18, 2012

1) In Attendance

• Suresh Balakrishnan (University System of Maryland)
• Mark Beadles (OARnet)
• Scott Cantor (Ohio State University/Internet2)
• Joseph Giroux (California Community Colleges)
• Jerry Grochow (Internet2)
• Michael Hodges (University of Hawaii)
• George Laskaris (NJEDge.Net)
• Steve Olshansky (Internet2)
• Linda Roos (Internet2)
• Brandon Saunders (IdM Integration)
• Tom Scavo (InCommon)
• Mark Scheible (MCNC)
• Marianne Smith (Internet2)
• Craig Stephenson (WiscNet)
• Randy Stout (Kansas Board of Regents)
• Andy Taylor (WiscNet)
• Dan Voeks (UW-Madison)
• Valerie Vogel (EDUCAUSE)
• Ann West (InCommon)
• Khalil Yazdi (Internet2)

2) Internet2 Net+ Services

• During today’s meeting, Jerry Grochow provided an update on the progress with various Internet2 Net+ Services such as Box and HP-SHI. This includes the part that federated identity management (IdM) plays. Visit www.internet2.edu/netplus/ for more details.
• Net+ services started with the idea of working with third-party vendors to provide customized cloud services for the higher education community using the infrastructure facilities of the Internet2 network and the federated authentication and authorization services available through InCommon.
• During the fall 2011 member meeting, Internet2 announced new services from Box (cloud storage services) and HP (community computing cloud services).
• Today, Internet2 announced a pilot of text services based on Indiana University’s eText model that will start in the spring: http://etexts.iu.edu
• At this time, InCommon membership is required for participation. Institutions can use their InCommon credentials to access services from Box or HP. This should help increase InCommon’s membership, but also allow many institutions flexibility in how they collaborate.
• A second requirement for vendors is connecting to the Internet2 network.
• They are in the process of speaking with a number of other vendors (30-40) that are interested in how they can provide services to the broader Internet2 community.
• They are also trying to ensure that Internet2 is improving vendor relationships and adding value for institutions by leveraging the ability to establish a negotiated agreement available to all schools. The goal is to avoid independent agreements with each school in terms of contractual clauses, while also hopefully bringing down vendor prices.
• Internet2 is also looking to go beyond commercial opportunities and find capabilities and services more meaningful to institutions. For example, a school might sign up for certain amount of storage with Box for a year, but might exceed their data limit. A type of “insurance” is built in so the price wouldn’t increase that year, but an institution would have to increase their storage limit the following year.
• Regional networks have an important role to play in this. They are talking with a number of regionals to determine if they want to extend their services nationally in partnership with Internet2 for Internet2 members. They expect to work with regionals on an ongoing basis.
  • If you’re part of a regional network and want to discuss this further, please feel free to contact Jerry at netplus@internet2.edu
• Suresh noted that eduroam may be integrated with InCommon at some point. Would eduroam eventually be offered as a Net+ service? Are there other means of federation for state agencies so they don’t have to join InCommon?
  • Right now, InCommon membership is required for Net+ services; Internet2 membership gets you an additional discount on the price.
• K-12 and community colleges may be interested in these services. If we could find cost-effective ways to include them, this would be important from our perspective.
  • Currently only .edu will be able to sign up for Box through Net+ services (it’s currently open to a small group of .edu’s as part of a trial).
  • Hoping to include more participation beyond Internet2 (and .edu) membership for HP services soon.
  • There will be differences in the negotiations on a vendor by vendor basis, depending on where each vendor sees their future market.
• Anticipate HP services by the second quarter. They intend to offer a variety of future services related to high performance computing, SAAS, administration services, etc. (as mentioned previously, in speaking to 30-40 different types of vendors). Internet2 hopes to announce new services on an ongoing basis as negotiations are finalized.
• Down the road, Internet2 might want to consider negotiating with a regional on behalf of its members to get a deal on services for HP-SHI, for example. If there’s an opportunity to work within the business model of a regional network and keep the regional branding, it’s likely that many regionals would like to leverage what Internet2 is doing.
  • Hopefully Internet2 can apply the same concept of leverage to regionals, and others working in this space, to provide benefits to as many people as possible.