Meeting With US-Trust

Meeting With US-Trust

January 19, 2011Jack Suess

What I Will Cover

1. Review 2009 InCommon Future's Report status2. What was accomplished in 2010.3. What is tentatively planned for 2011.4. Discussion with the group

o US-UCAN implicationso Connecting other communities - K12o Other topics

Future’s Report

• Released Summer 2009. • Provided 13 recommendations.• See https://spaces.internet2.edu/download/

attachments/3441099/InCommonFuture_20090701.pdf?version=1

3

Thirteen Recommendations:1.  Move beyond federation to focus on Trust Services. Done2. Establish an InCommon foundation for middleware dev.

Shiboleth Consortium being launched with EDINA.3.  Establish a management and governance structure with

authority to make decisions (within some bounds) that are necessary for InCommon's success. Expand membership to include other communities that collaborate with higher ed.  Will be done in 2011

4.  By Q2 2010. InCommon should have a business plan. Done.

5.  By Q4 2012. InCommon should have positive cash flow.6.  Internet2 should provide working capital that will be repaid

as identified in the business plan. Done.

7.    Internet2 will continue to provide support and administrative services for InCommon. Done.8.    Internet2 will strive to bring in 75% of its members to InCommon by the end of 2010 ( presently at 66%).9.     InCommon should review new services, such as Certificate service for launch in 2010 - Done.10.   By Q2 2010. InCommon should launch training and adoption programs to support new members. Done11.   By Q1 2010. InCommon should build partnerships (note we launched affiliate program). Done12.    By Q4 2009. Bronze and Silver profiles should be defined and launched. In Progrees13.     For 2010. InCommon should adjust participant pricing to bring this in line with costs. Done

Business Plan Recommendationshttps://spaces.internet2.edu/download/attachments/3441099/InC_BusinessPlan-v1.pdf?version=1

1.  Full-time Executive Director focused on business development and partnerships. Not Done Yet.

2. Internet2 provides working capital in 2010/2011.3. InCommon should break even in 2012.4. Build close relationship with EDUCAUSE.

Projected Results:• Participant growth from 165 (2009), 265 (2010), 390 (2011), 740

(2012)• New services - certificate, bronze/silver, and federation operation.

In discussion on eduroam as a new service.

Current State: Numbers

• 266 participantso 189 universities and collegeso 8 government labs and agencieso 69 sponsored partners

•  4 InCommon Affiliateso Microsoft, AegisUSA, Gluu, UNICON

• 79 Subscribers to Cert Service. Includes UT system (~17 campuses) and CSU system (~20 campuses).

InCommon Participants Year-by-Year

8

• 266 InCommon Participants • Almost 5 million end-users (faculty, staff, students)

2011 Business Goals• Total Participants – 390.

My guess on how this will shake out.• University Participants – 270, now 189• Government & Non-Profit – 30, now 8• Service providers – 90, now 69.

• Levers• Discussions with the Department of Energy (this could add up to 22

research labs).• Focused outreach to Internet2 members not in InCommon• Identify state systems or regionals that want to launch shared services

that would benefit from InCommon.• Focus on adding more service providers

• Looking to 2012 and beyond• US-UCAN communities will be key if we are to reach 2012 and beyond

goals.

Building the Value Proposition

• Certificate service – provides the most comprehensive set of certificate services on the market at a single low price.

• Research – Dept of Energy labs, NIH just released 50 services accessible through InCommon, NSF report on campus CI calls InCommon key. This will likely generate additional service providers.

• Microsoft LIVE365 launch – This will bring native SAML support to Microsoft platform.

• Pushing adoption of InCommon services by participants. Finding the killer app(s).

• Explore hosted federation solutions and metadata aggregation tools

Laying the Groundwork for 2012

• 2011 InCommon will also focus on the following:– Defining our relationship with US-UCAN communities;– Launch first LOA-based applications;– Continue to enhance outreach efforts;– Building a stronger relationship with service providers;– Developing vendor-based solutions for deploying and

operating the IdM requirements; and– Reviewing and assessing our governance structure.

US-UCAN Relationship

• This will be our first priority as the US-UCAN activity takes shape over the next few months.

• Goal will be to understand what services communities require and whether InCommon can help.

• Key to this is we can’t lose site of what we have to do in 2011 for higher education to succeed.

Launch First LOA Applications

• Level of Asssurance (LOA) is a key differentiator and will be required for federation to take hold and will likely be critical for US-UCAN community.

• Finalizing the requirements for Silver based on feedback from the CIC pilot schools.

Outreach and Support

• In 2010 we launched the following:– InCommon/EDUCAUSE IAM monthly series.– InCommon CAMP – Newsletter– Shib Trainings

• In 2011 we will continue this but look additional options to expand those providing support, especially by working with Statenets and Regionals.

Expanding Service Providers

• Who are the critical service providers we need to engage with.

• How can InCommon support our internal communities in launching services.

• How do we get participants to move from their current model to using InCommon based services

• How do we leverage Microsoft LIVE365 services.

Vendor Support for IdM

• InCommon’s success depends on making it easier for small and mid-sized participants to stand up the necessary IdM service without having to do it in-house.

• Working with vendors to provide an assortment of solutions from consulting, to hosted, to appliance and everything in between.

Internet2

InCommon Governance & Community

FederationOperator

&Business Office

TechnicalAdvisory

Committee

NominationsCommittee

Steering CommitteeRepresentatives

of Higher Ed & its Partners

Dire

ctio

n

Dire

ctio

n

CandidateApprovals

Advice

Participant CommunityN

ominations

Collab’tn G

roups

Service Needs 17

Discussion and Questions

• Do these activities support the goals of US-Trust?• How should we engage US-Trust in these discussions?• How do we keep open lines of communication?• How do we both collaborate on US-UCAN implications?o How do we support early adopters in other communities,

especially K-12?