Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-european network infrastructure for public services

Transcription

1 Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-european network infrastructure for public services FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology Digital Agenda for Europe

2 This study was carried out for the European Commission by Capgemini, Deloitte and Tech4i2. Internal identification Contract number: 30-CE /00-84 SMART number: 2012/0048 DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN DOI: /54275 European Union, All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SETTING THE SCENE INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF THE STUDY EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE OF PUBLICLY FUNDED NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURES MEMBER STATES READINESS FOR A COMMON NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS MEMBER STATES READINESS MATURITY LEVELS IN EUROPE: A BIRD S EYE VIEW THE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE: GROW TOWARDS A CLEAR AND MATURE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE: LEVERAGE INFRASTRUCTURES OF COMMON INTEREST THE ORGANISATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: ALIGN AT A NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL, AND ACROSS DOMAINS THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE: ENSURE A CLEAR ALLOCATION OF BUDGET AND ICT SPEND CREATING SYNERGY BETWEEN NETWORKS FOUR REAL-LIFE CASES DIGINETWERK, A DUTCH BASIC CONNECTION NETWORK FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS RENATER, THE FRENCH NATIONAL NETWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ACONET, THE AUSTRIAN ACADEMIC COMPUTER NETWORK BELNET, THE BELGIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ON DEPLOYMENT OF OPTICAL FIBRE NETWORKS FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS DRIVERS, BARRIERS AND SUCCESS FACTORS DRIVERS Cost Savings Better Services BARRIERS Public Sector Barriers Supply Side Barriers CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ROADMAP TO ENGAGE THE FUTURE CHALLENGES ANNEX A: ACRONYMS ANNEX B: GLOSSARY

4 Executive Summary Aim of the study. The Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-european network infrastructure for public services (SMART2012/0048) assesses the maturity of EU Member States national network infrastructures for public administrations. The study focuses on country-specific situations and the challenges in building common nationwide network infrastructures for public services. The study will contribute to creating the basis for connecting networks at European level. Scope of the study. The scope of this study is defined as network infrastructures that enable (cross-border) data exchange between public administrations. The study looks in particular at national network infrastructures for public administrations as well as several Research and Education community (R&E) good practice cases. The focus is on Closed User Group networks (CUGs) which are accessible only to public administrations at a national, regional and local level. In the context of this study, these are networks that facilitate data exchange between public organisations with access to that CUG as opposed to public networks that serve society at large. Creating synergy between networks. This study looks at various ways of creating synergies between different existing national network infrastructures as well as at drivers, barriers and success factors. These are interesting in particular for policymakers in the fields of egovernment, interoperability and information systems, but also for public network providers and operators at a national level. In the context of this study, synergy 1 between networks refers specifically to the sharing of one or more elements or parts of a network infrastructure by network owners and operators. A network infrastructure generally consists of multiple levels of data communication. A distinction can be made between Media layers, which provide basic transport, Network layers which provide IP packet transport, and Service layers providing data transport. These three layers group together similar communication functions in networks. When creating synergies between networks for public administrations, these could be realised by sharing specific parts or elements of these layers. For example, on the Media layers, cables/fibres/transmission systems can be shared by various operators or delivered by subcontractors such as (dark) fibre operators or wholesale operators. On the Network layer, it is common for different network operators each to provide part of the IP routing. On the Service (data transport) layer, one example of a way synergy can be created is by sharing the same type of data formats and security technologies. The amount of overlap between the different networks and the service requirements (e.g. security, authentication, authorisation) for each specific public domain (e.g. tax, health, defence) defines the extent to which different layers and parts of layers can be shared. It is assumed that the lowest layers of a network infrastructure (e.g. the physical cables) can be shared most easily and can therefore be shared by most stakeholders. The higher one gets in the structure of a network infrastructure (e.g. the services), the more challenging it becomes to create synergy due to the increasingly divergent requirements of the communities (e.g. the level of security). It is important to note, moreover, that synergies only take place in the core of the network, where routes between different destinations can be shared. The access to the core network (the last mile ) is generally a dedicated connection procured by and installed on behalf of the specific user. Cost benefit analysis. The study gathered evidence of costs and benefits at the network level, notably through the build-up of common optical fibre infrastructures levered by National Research and Education Networks (NRENs). An overview of the costs and benefits network infrastructure deployment shows that across the EU28 Member States, the annual benefits provided to citizens and public sector users (EUR 190mio), are in most cases greater than the annual running costs (EUR 117mio). 1 Synergy is defined as the combination of elements in networks in such a way that the results of the combination are more than the results of the sum of the individual elements. 4

5 Drivers. Apart from the possible technical benefits of creating synergies between networks, there is also a societal perspective, i.e. the perspective that public administrations should have in order to serve the citizens and businesses, which are essentially their final beneficiaries. Evidence gathered through field research shows that advanced players are driven by: Cost savings, which are important for the public sector as everyone is aiming to do more with less. Synergies can deliver cost savings primarily in two ways: sharing resources (e.g. equipment) and collective procurement. The first spreads costs. The second bundles and potentially increases bargaining power, leading to better prices and thus cost savings. Better services refers to doing more, doing it faster and doing it better and is often, if not always, the goal of the public sector as it (ultimately) means providing better services to the businesses and citizens it serves. Better services can, in this context, be provided by ensuring higher bandwidth, increased availability, better reliability, more flexibility and higher security. Barriers. There are also a number of barriers to achieving synergies between networks in and across the Member States. These include political resistance to change and to giving up power and influence in a specific field of activity and silo behaviour, i.e. the lack of willingness to communicate with others or share ownership. In interviews, fears were voiced that the new network might lack flexibility or not satisfy basic needs. These are significant barriers. Moreover, the complexity of governance makes it challenging to initiate synergies. Where there are many stakeholders, the governance structure may become (even more) complex. In addition, in some countries, legal restrictions (mainly related to legal barriers in the field of public procurement) make it difficult for administrations and network providers to work together. Lastly, budgetary restrictions are seen as a barrier. Even if there will be cost savings in the long term, at the start there will be set-up costs. Moreover, the cost allocation and savings benefits might not be equally distributed among the different organisations involved. Critical Success Factors. There are a number of critical success factors, without which the synergies will not happen: Political Sponsorship and Policy Alignment are essential because it is necessary for someone to take the lead and drive the effort, demonstrate the benefits and overcome the potential political resistance. Stakeholder Engagement and Commitment are not only about stakeholders being engaged by political sponsors, they are also about stakeholders talking to each other, including at European level. Good Governance and Stakeholder Representation are prerequisites when different stakeholders are brought together, and consideration needs to be given to both common and different needs across these domains. Synergy-enabling procurement processes are needed to enable collective procurement. Budgetary commitments are required to ensure that the necessary funding is available to make the initial capital investment. Recommendations. In terms of the way forward, it is envisaged that the role of the European Commission will be to support, enable and encourage synergies at national level. It is recommended, therefore, that the European Commission should: Enable and encourage stakeholder dialogue and community building; Identify and share good practices; Take action to help overcome legal barriers; Help secure the right budgetary commitments from key players; Ensure that the advantages and disadvantages of synergies are clear; and Stimulate TERENA 2 (Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association) to drive the stakeholder dialogue and the identification and sharing of good practices. 2 The Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association offers a forum to collaborate, innovate and share knowledge in order to foster the development of Internet technology. During the course of the study, TERENA voiced the opinions of the Research and Education network providers (NRENs) and collaborated where appropriate. 5

6 In the short term (2014) it is important to maintain the existing political momentum and further grow awareness at European level as well as at Member State level. To this end, it is essential to: 1. Bring relevant stakeholders in the specific network areas and domains together during one or more interactive workshop(s) so as to create a common understanding of the challenges ahead as well as the issues at stake. The best approach is for these to be people at a comparable level of technical, political, organisational and economic maturity. The challenges which countries with a high level of maturity face are not the same as those faced by countries with a below average level of maturity. Issues which the former have to deal with include CUG governance and how to scale up to a European network. The latter are at the stage of needing to consider, for example, how existing networks can be leveraged and combined to support a national interconnected basic network. 2. Define and detail good practices: these are hands-on examples of how a synergy would work or can be organised. Good practices should be identified within the specific political, economic, technical and organisational dimensions. These should focus not merely on the end-situation, but also on how to cope with the challenges arising along the way. There is no one single solution. Good practices should inspire people to design and implement a solution tailored to their specific environment. One way of identifying and detailing good practices could be via a TERENA task force. 3. Set up an online platform or build on an existing platform to enable a collaborative community to be established and to provide stakeholders with a means of sharing their thoughts, experiences and knowledge, and of continuing their work together. Furthermore, it is recommended that different discussion groups be set up for each dimension and maturity level. Stakeholders can then join the appropriate group and better identify with the discussions and challenges raised. In the medium term ( ) it is important both to keep up the work initiated in the short term and to ensure a suitable monitoring mechanism: 4. Monitor proceedings: this will enable policymakers to align their strategy properly at both a national and European level. By monitoring the effects of short-term actions and the progress made per country, the Commission can steer the efforts in the direction of the most impactful forms of activity. Moreover in this context, the Commission and Member States should: 5. Create high-level political interest and backing for the creation of synergies by keeping the issue on the political agenda, taking into account the renewal of the Digital Agenda for Europe (2015) and the midterm review of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). In the long-term ( ) the work done needs to be leveraged by focusing more and more on ensuring the sustainability of the synergies created. The Commission and Member States should: 6. Further investigate and explore the possibilities for connecting Member States to a pan-european network infrastructure (either existing or new) through an action plan. This action plan should set out the focus and funding needed to ensure adequate implementation. Given that the CEF investment framework will come to an end in 2020, this allows time for the Commission and Member States time to define new policy strategies and, more importantly, a new investment programme. 6

7 1 Setting the scene 1.1 Introduction This of the Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-european network infrastructure for public services (SMART2012/0048) sets out the European landscape of publicly funded network infrastructures, addressing specifically the needs of public administrations and the exchange of data between these administrations. This report presents the key findings on countries overall readiness for creating synergies at a national and eventually a European level. This is analysed based on their current state of play and the challenges that lie ahead from a political, economic, technical and organisational perspective. The report expands, in addition, on how to create synergies and presents four different case studies from across Europe. These case studies explain how synergies have been created between the network infrastructures of various actors and/or domains and the challenges encountered. The report covers inter alia the governance, financing and types of network. Moreover, it addresses the main drivers, barriers and success factors in creating these kinds of synergies between network infrastructures. 1.2 Scope of the study This study looks both at national network infrastructures from the viewpoint of public administrations and good practice cases from the NREN community. Nevertheless, it is electronic information exchange among public administrations which is the nub of this study. Information exchange between public administrations, citizens and businesses is out of scope, but is taken into account if the access of citizens and companies to public information is relevant. The focus of the study is on Closed User Group networks (CUGs) in Member States, and of these, it is those which are accessible to public administrations which are of interest. A CUG network is a network that facilitates the exchange of electronic data between more than two organisations with access to that CUG. The clients and users of these CUGs are public administrations at a national, regional and local level. The emphasis is on (the developments around) connecting local, regional and national CUGs so as to be able to scale these up to a European level. These national interconnected networks across domains are referred to as interconnected CUGs. The figure below shows how CUGs related to closed interconnected networks for public administrations. 7

8 Public Administration Public Administration Public Administration Public Administration Closed User Group Healthcare CUG interconnections Closed User Group Police & Defense departments Public Administration Public Administration Closed User Group Ministries IN SCOPE Closed User Group Tax departments Closed User Group Government Agencies Public Administration Public Administration OUT OF SCOPE Public Administration Public Administration Figure 1.1: Architecture model of interconnection (both physical and virtual) of different closed user groups at national level Generally a network infrastructure consists of multiple levels of data communication. Three types of layer can be distinguished: Media layers providing basic transport like cables, fibres and transmission systems; Network layers providing IP packet transport (IP routing of IP Packets); Service layers providing data transport by laying down data formats and security measures. These three layers basically group together similar communication functions in networks, while different parties are involved in delivering the end-to-end communication services. This layering helps to identify stakeholders roles and responsibilities and the extent to and in relation to which layers, synergies are possible. 8

9 2 European landscape of publicly funded network infrastructures Connecting governments and markets has been a key priority of the European Union from the very beginning. There is a reference already in the Treaty of Rome to linking the different Member States and regions with an efficient and well maintained network infrastructure in order to create a Single European Market. These ideas were put into practice in the late eighties through the first major reform of the Treaties into the Single European Act (1986) 3. This act defined three types of Trans-European Networks (TENs): transport networks (TEN-T), energy networks (TEN-E) and telecommunications networks (eten). The eten programme specifically supported the deployment of cross-border digital services in the public sector. The programme finished at the end of 2006; most of its projects ended in 2009 and From 2007 to 2013, the Commission supported electronic public services through the Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP), which was part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP). Relevant projects initiated under this Programme are the so-called Large Scale Pilots (LSPs). Through five LSPs, public authorities have developed and piloted solutions for seamless crossborder services in numerous domains. They cover e-procurement (PEPPOL), e-health (epsos), e-justice (e-codex), Business Start-up (SPOCS) and e-identity (STORK). These solutions can be seen as building blocks for further development of cross-border public services, comprising (new) standards, software and services that enable public authorities to deal with the various challenges and requirements of cross-border service provision. The European Commission has also launched a new pilot called electronic Simple European Networked Services (esens) to consolidate and solidify the work done previously under the CIP ICT PSP Programme. Over the last decade the European Commission has initiated the roll-out of several more Trans-European Network systems 4 in support of EU policies. A key objective of all is to enable efficient and effective data exchange between public administrations, citizens and businesses. Since the Commission is organised by policy area, these systems have typically been developed per policy domain. This has resulted in various reference architectures, protocols and standards per DG. A few examples are shown in the figure below 5. DG CONNECT DG DIGIT DG EMPL DG TAXUD E-Codex SPOCS STORK PEPPOL epsos GÉANT TESTA NG ECAS etrustex eprior ESSI ULYSSE EESSI EURES CCN/CSI CCN2 VIES SPEED2 Figure 2.1: A few examples of Trans-European Network systems in various domains In addition to the five LSP building blocks developed under DG CONNECT s policy programme, DG DIGIT has, for example, built the Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations network (TESTA). It facilitates the collaboration between public administrations in various policy domains by consolidating existing networks and delivering a secure, reliable and flexible service layer on top of these. TESTA provides a private A Trans-European Network System is an ICT solution for cross-border data exchange information across sectors. 5 Note that only four DGs have been highlighted here, whereas there are several more DGs deploying Trans-European Networks. 9

10 communication platform for exchanging data between public administrations at Member State and European level. TESTA is a concept based on a collaborative approach. It involves agreements like memoranda of understanding (MoU) and the setting-up of various working groups, such as TESTA expert groups and a Security Accreditation Panel. Challenges often arise when trying to reach a common understanding and alignment on the content of the agreements. This stems from the mix of cultures across Europe and the various country-specific ways of handling data (exchange). Moreover, technical security implementations are often driven by political sensitivity and not by risk assessment and risk management. The fourth New Generation (TESTA NG) includes a Euro Domain and multiple clouds. The major focus of the network services is on security and cryptography accredited to European Commission restricted level. DG DIGIT of the European Commission is responsible for the network infrastructure services and has organisational and contractual control of the TESTA contracts. At the time of this report, Orange Business Services (OBS) and HP hold the contract for this network. DIGIT is not the only DG concerned with the implementation of a trans-european network infrastructure. DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL) is working on the Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) system. This aims to support communication (messaging) between national social security institutions and stimulate the exchange of social security information. Once the system is in place, it will enable the exchange between national authorities of structured electronic documents on cross-border social security files. DG EMPL is responsible for delivering and operating the EESSI International Domain covering the EESSI Backbone Network, a Coordination Node and the International Part of the Access Points, at least for the next five years. The participating Member States are responsible for the EESSI National Domain and delivering the National Part of the Access Points. The EESSI Sectoral Domain covers the various social security sectors and the changes necessary to existing systems to link them to the larger EESSI system. Sectoral authorities are responsible for this specific connection. These types of network can also be found in the customs and taxation domain, e.g. the Common Communication Network/Common System Interface (CCN/CSI). The CCN/CSI infrastructure provides its own closed, secure trans- European network infrastructure, which facilitates the exchange of information between the national administrations IT systems. DG TAXUD is the owner of CCN/CSI. The infrastructure enables a common approach to the development and operation of applications in compliance with EU legislation. The network backbone offers global WAN access to national Customs and Taxation authorities. In addition, it supports various protocols, confidentiality and data integrity by protecting and providing secure data exchanges. It deals with over 1.7 billion data exchanges 6 each year and without CCN/CSI, the national IT systems cannot function and communicate internationally. All networks have faced or are facing their own specific challenges. Nevertheless, strong commonalities exist among the various domains. Similar challenges are known to include secure and reliable e-delivery, identity management, document standards, and semantic dictionaries. A few Trans-European ICT solutions driven by Member States and European Commission, and described below, provide clear examples of these challenges and how they have been successfully addressed to achieve common approaches. The GÉANT 7 network is such an example. It is a fast and reliable pan-european communications infrastructure serving Europe s research and education community. The GÉANT project is entering its fourth generation, along with associated development activities like addressing the digital divide in research and education networking across Europe and supporting technological research to ensure Europe s role at the forefront of networking and e- science. GÉANT is co-funded by 38 European National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) and the 6 DG TAXUD, GÉANT (2012). (GN3) GÉANT Project Home. Retrieved from 10

11 European Union, and managed and coordinated by DANTE 8 (Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe) on behalf of Europe s NRENs. It connects over 50 million users in over 10,000 institutions across Europe. The GÉANT network also connects to all peering regional clusters in the world, including those in North and South America, the Balkans, the Mediterranean, South Africa, and Central and Eastern Asia. The NRENs are Closed User Group networks, specialised in offering services to research and education communities. NRENs have a special position compared to the commercial Internet market since they operate as non-profit organisations that focus on a specific target group and audience. The GÉANT project is a good example of how to establish a successful trans-european backbone infrastructure. Its success is based on a sound combination of innovative, leading national networks and European targets: subsidised by both, and disseminated and led by others. Taken together, this provides a collaborative platform with different beneficiaries, stakeholders and users, enabling the right mix of knowledge, expertise and standards to set up a sound trans-european backbone. Bottlenecks are being removed, the quality of services is controlled, and people build on their best practices and have secure access. Overall, the combined GÉANT and NREN networks offer more than km of dark fibre. In addition, the European Commission has initiated a new instrument for the years called the Connecting Europe Facility 9 (CEF) that addresses the transport, energy and digital infrastructure jointly, with a view to creating a high quality European network to ensure social and economic cohesion. To achieve this, the CEF will promote the deployment of Digital Service Infrastructures (DSI) like those mentioned above. DSIs build bridges and connect Member States, leaving freedom at national level, while enabling cross-border delivery of (electronic) services of common interest. The CEF complements other EU programmes, such as the Cohesion and Structural Funds. 8 DANTE (2013). Homepage. Retrieved from: 9 European Commission (2011). Proposal for a Regulation (EC) COM(2011)655 of 19 October 2011 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility. Retrieved from: 11

12 3 Member States readiness for a common network infrastructure for public services 3.1 Methodology to assess Member States readiness Analysing Member State s readiness for a common infrastructure for public services involves three steps which are shown in the figure below. 10 The first step is the analysis of a Member State s current state of play in terms of network infrastructures for public administrations. An understanding of a Member State s state of play is key to successful design of the way to organise any common network infrastructure for public services. Consequently, the detailed Member State investigation is based on four perspectives. The political dimension captures a country s future orientation regarding the development of (cross-border) interoperable ICT solutions and its involvement in creating DSIs. The technical dimension focuses on the networks available in a country. It captures the (plans for) implementation of national reference architecture, the Closed User Group networks available and larger interconnected Closed User Group networks at national level. The organisational dimension outlines the roles and responsibilities, i.e. the extent to which the management and steering are aligned, and the networks are publicly or privately owned. Finally, the economic dimension focuses on the time, money and resources available for developing, maintaining and operating the network infrastructure(s). This analysis is then complemented by a so-called SWOT-i analysis. This analysis identifies what elements are helpful and what elements are harmful in order to achieve the objective of a common network infrastructure for public administrations. The Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats are therefore mapped. Aggregation of the results reveals the identification of key issues. Analysis Current State of Play SWOT-i analysis Readiness Analysis Figure 3.1: Three-step approach to measuring readiness The final assessment is an analysis of the countries readiness for establishing a nationwide network infrastructure for public administrations. On each of the four dimensions political, technical, organisational and economic, the magnitude of readiness is assessed on a scale of 1 to 4. For instance, for a country with a score of 4 on the technical dimension - The network infrastructure in this country supports (cross-border) electronic information exchange across all government departments (national, regional, local) by means of one or more interconnected Closed User Group networks. This network can either be built up by several interconnected Closed User Group networks or a new dedicated network - would be likely to experience fewer difficulties connecting to a common or even a pan-european network infrastructure than a country scoring 1 - The country does not provide any existing Closed User Group networks for public administrations or in other words, there is no public administration connected to a network specifically dedicated to their needs and requirements - on that same dimension. Here, there is still a long way to go in terms of connecting public administrations nationwide. 10 A detailed explanation of the approach for the specific analyses, the methodologies used and country-specific outcomes can be found in the Final Study Report ANNEX Readiness Analysis. 12

13 Thus, in essence, the readiness is considered to be high when a country scores 4 on each dimension whereas it is likely to be low if a country scores Maturity levels in Europe: a bird s eye view The spider chart in the figure below reveals Europe s state of play along the lines of the four main dimensions investigated during the readiness analysis: political, technical, organisational and economic. The analysis provides an overview of the different macro-environmental factors influencing the development of national closed interconnected networks. Political dimension - Future orientation Organisational dimension Roles and responsibilities 1 0 Economic dimension Time, money and resources Technical dimension Methods and systems Figure 3.2: Europe s overall state of play on each of the four dimensions The analysis shows that from a political and technical perspective, the Member States are relatively developed (scoring 3 on a scale of 4), whereas from an economic and organisational point of view, there are still some challenges to overcome (scoring 2 on a scale of 4). Political. The research shows that the majority of the Member States (68%) have implemented (advanced) longterm egovernment strategies to enable interoperability not only between public administrations, and citizens and businesses, but also across public administrations. Advancement comes mainly by reflecting on and stimulating in the strategies more directly interoperability and the use of open standards across public administrations. Moreover, a clear and mature legal framework in support of the implementation across administrations would benefit even more countries (another 32% on top). Technical. The analysis shows that the single largest group of countries (46%) have an advanced national network infrastructure. These basically connect all levels of government (local, regional, national). They are connected to pan-european network infrastructures like TESTA NG and CCN/CSI. Thirty-six per cent of the countries do not have a single or several interconnected Closed User Group networks in place, but instead have several separate Closed User Group networks. In almost all these cases, the preconditions for further interconnecting and scaling up these CUGs are in place or are being developed. The other eighteen per cent could make gains by developing common 11 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 13

14 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU28 Average Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan- standards and building blocks in support of (cross-border) electronic information exchange across all departments and levels of government. The opportunities generally involve leveraging infrastructures of common interest and, in a time that is economically challenging, cost savings. At least four NRENs can be classified as providers of network infrastructures and additional services not only for the research and education community but also for public administrations. These include ACOnet (Austria), Belnet (Belgium), RENATER (France) and PIONIER (Poland). Organisational. Looking at the organisational dimension shows that fourteen per cent of Member States fully align the management of their network infrastructure(s) at a strategic, tactical and operational level throughout all levels of government. However, in most countries by far (86%) strategic, tactical and operational management of national network infrastructures is either dispersed or only partially aligned. This means that these governments still have some challenges to overcome in order to align policy initiatives on a national and local level. Interviews show that the threats more often revolve around communities and domains fearing a potential loss of autonomy when network infrastructures and/or services are combined. The impact of mixed ownership models (public and private) on the daily governance and maintenance of the existing solutions are seen as serious threats. Economic. The results of investigating the budget and management of the ICT spend in each country are mixed. Fifty per cent of Member States have a clear allocation of budget for the development of a common network infrastructure and for the yearly maintenance and operating costs of the existing public network infrastructure. For twenty-one per cent of the countries network infrastructures are still at the stage of being rolled out and thus large amounts of the budget and ICT spend are being allocated in support of that. In many cases (29%), however, these data could not be retrieved. This means either that no budget has been allocated to develop network infrastructures for public administrations, or that these figures are classified. The technical maturity of systems in several of these countries (e.g. Germany and Portugal) indicates that a budget is indeed allocated to developing more sophisticated network infrastructures for administrations Average State of Play Figure 3.3: Europe s overall state of play per Member State Overall, as the figure above reveals, there is room for Europe to develop national network infrastructures for public administrations further, if it is to realise its ambition of scaling these up to European level. The measurement reveals gaps on all four dimensions and there is therefore a need to take country- and dimensionspecific action.. 14

15 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU28 Average Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan- The following chapters therefore elaborate on possible ways of creating synergies between network infrastructures in different domains: the challenges, the drivers, the barriers, and the critical success factors, as well as making recommendations on the way forward. However, before going into detail on this, the next paragraphs elaborate on the four different perspectives influencing the development of national closed interconnected networks. 3.3 The political perspective: grow towards a clear and mature legal framework Investigating more the political dimension in greater depth (as shown in the figure below) reveals that the majority of countries score above average (3 or 4 on the scale). Countries which are quite advanced in the implementation of their egovernment policy strategies and in developing open standards in support of data exchange between public administrations are Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal and the UK (43% of all countries). They have adapted their legal frameworks in order to make proper implementation possible. These countries are also taking future developments into account by bearing in mind cross-border interoperability. This is mainly reflected in their involvement in one or more DSIs at European level Figure 3.4: Countries scoring on the political dimension Top scorers include Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain (25% of all Member States). These score at the high end. This is because, on the one hand, they are establishing and piloting DSIs and building blocks, and the use of open standards across the nation, and the other, they have effective legal frameworks which contribute significantly to the success of their egovernment strategy. Austria was, for example, one of the first to pass comprehensive legal regulations in the area of egovernment. Legislation for the services offered online is not consolidated within one document, but is rather are spread-out over various (existing) law books that together determine the ground rules of egovernment 12. A second example: Poland s interoperability framework and existing interoperability guidelines are all law-enforced: the egovernment communications and mandatory contents within electronic messages are explicitly laid down in law. This 12 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 15

16 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU28 Average Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan- enforcement has been an important enabler for Polish interoperability activities 13. These consistent formats, or open standards, are promoted within the Act on NIF (National Interoperability Framework that refers to the benefits for successful interoperability when using open formats based on open standards. Although Cyprus, Czech Republic and Lithuania (11%) have a long-term egovernment strategy in place, it does not address advanced (cross-border) interoperability between public administrations. This is closely linked to the lack of maturity of the countries network infrastructure(s). These countries are still in the process of rolling out their national broadband plans so as to provide high-speed Internet access in all populated areas 14. These countries are working on meeting their basic targets for creating a Digital Single Market in the Digital Agenda for Europe. This internal focus is reflected in their low to no involvement in the development of DSIs. Several more mature countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden (21%) do not either put emphasis on interoperability and the use of open standards between public administrations in their policy strategy. Moreover, the legal framework does not necessarily support a common use of standards and protocols among the different public organisations. Nevertheless, these countries seem to be establishing a more outgoing view as they are involved in the development of one or more DSI building blocks. 3.4 The technical perspective: leverage infrastructures of common interest Analysing the technical perspective in more detail shows a wide range of possible interconnections between networks for public administrations in the Member States ranging from a level where the focus is on the roll-out of physical network infrastructures, as for instance in Bulgaria, to national interconnected CUG networks in countries like in Austria, Belgium and France Figure 3.5: Countries scoring on the technical dimension Of 28 Member States, forty-six per cent currently have a network infrastructure that supports (cross-border) electronic information exchange across all government departments by means of a closed interconnected network. These countries are Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. The development of these national networks differs, however, per 13 More precisely the Law on Informatisation of Entities Performing Public Services laid down the National Computerisation Plan and initiated other guidelines, such as the Regulation Concerning Minimal Requirements for ICT Systems. 14 Retrieved from: 16

17 country. The Netherlands for example has several Closed User Group networks in place; e.g. the Haagse Ring which connects all ministries, RINISnet which connects public organisations in the social domain, and Gemnet which connects all municipalities. By adopting a national i-strategy, coherence has been brought to the fragmented national ICT infrastructure. Now Diginetwerk connects the various existing physical networks for government organisations to enable one single (virtual) interconnected network of government network infrastructures 15. A second example, Estonia, basically had a completely different entry point. Their strategy took developments and requirements at European level into account at the outset. Their strategy for implementation was designed collaboratively by all ministries, the State Chancery, as well as organisations representing third parties. The development of a national interconnected CUG network in Estonia builds on a number of principles which must be respected by all public administrations, both national and local. The strategy is implemented based on annual Information Society Implementation Plans. Each ministry submits a Plan to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, which covers all the ICT-related developments foreseen during the following year. These Implementation Plans build on the recommendations formulated by sectoral expert groups. Thirty-six per cent of the countries have IT systems in place which support various building blocks enabling electronic data exchange between public administrations. However, there is no single Closed User Group network in place (or not yet) that physically connects all domains and levels of government. Nevertheless, preconditions for further interconnection and scaling up are in place or being developed. These countries include Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Among the lowest scoring countries are Denmark and Romania (7% of the total). Although Denmark, for example, is stimulating construction of building blocks in all municipal and public-sector ICT systems, implementation is complex. Therefore, the standardisation of procedures, information, data and systems across the public sector will be implemented gradually through different initiatives. In this way, Denmark is indeed working on improving data and communication exchange. However, there is no indication that a single interconnected network serving all public administrations is being developed. There is also nothing in Romania to indicate that a common network infrastructure is being developed. The final 11%, including Bulgaria, Italy and Latvia, appear to have emerging CUG networks or an interconnected CUG network at national level. For instance, the Bulgarian Executive Agency for ICT, or Electronic Communication Networks and Information Systems (ECNIS) has been entrusted with the installation, operation and development of the Integrated Electronic Communication Network (IECN) for state and municipality administrations (Public Administration, Council of Ministers), and national security. This should enable the technology for data exchange in that country. However, this technology is not close to being implemented. 3.5 The organisational perspective: align at a national and local level, and across domains Investigating the organisational dimension reveals a mix of organisation models across countries, ranging from centralised to decentralised or federated management of IT systems as well as ICT spend. The figure below presents the countries scores on the organisational dimension. 15 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 17

18 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU28 Average Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan Figure 3.6: Countries scoring on the organisational dimension Austria, Germany, Ireland and Netherlands (14%) have high scores, i.e. the management of the network infrastructure(s) is fully integrated at strategic, tactical and operational level and aligned throughout all levels of government. Germany strives for a common strategic orientation by federal, state and local governments in further developing public services and network systems, and aims to coordinate action taken by those involved in order to ensure interoperability and cost-effectiveness. The responsibility for this implementation lies with the Federal Ministry of the Interior. All government departments have appointed Chief Information Officers (CIOs) with wide-ranging powers, together forming the IT Council, chaired by the Federal CIO. The most important task of the Federal CIO is to expand interdepartmental IT coordination into interdepartmental IT management. The Federal CIO is pursuing this goal in conjunction with the IT management bodies: the CIO Council made up of the chief information officers from each federal ministry, and the federal IT Management Group. Austria takes a similar approach. It has centralised governance in place for aligning and steering the developments around public services and network systems. The key body responsible for ICT programmes and execution is the ICT Strategy Unit at the Federal Chancellery. The Federal Chancellery is responsible for coordinating general government policy and the public information activities of the Federal Government and the Federal Constitution of Austria. The Netherlands is a different case again. Here, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations commissions ICTU (government ICT Unit) and Logius (government shared services for ICT) to implement the policy at a national level. ICTU contributes to the structural development of public services by executing programmes and projects in the public sector. In addition, they develop the actual ICT solutions for government departments and support them during the implementation. Logius functions as the overarching institute that maintains ICT solutions and generic standards at a government-wide level. The Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG) coordinates the implementation of the ICT policy and strategy at municipality level. KING, the quality institute for Dutch Municipalities, is responsible for the development and management of ICT standards at a local level. It also supports the actual implementation of tools and standards in municipalities across the Netherlands. The single largest group of countries (54%) have an organisational structure that aligns only several aspects of the strategic, tactical and operational management of their network infrastructures. These countries are Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. In these countries, there is a clear-cut distinction between the level of the national government (which sets overall strategy) and local and regional governments that may implement the strategy within the limits of their respective competences, as is for instance the case in France. 18

19 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU28 Average Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan- In Belgium, for example, responsibility for ICT strategy is spread across several federal ministries. Formal agreements govern the alignment of the implementation by the agencies and bodies involved. These agreements ensure that all levels of Government cooperate to provide integrated services regardless of organisational boundaries and administrative layers. However, at a local level initiatives are coordinated by municipalities using their own mechanisms and time schedules to implement the strategy. In another fourteen per cent of the countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece and Poland) strategic, tactical and operational management of national network infrastructures is dispersed. In several cases, there is a trend towards aligning the management and ownership models of such networks better in order to create a more efficient and effective public administration. While Poland has no government-led initiatives for mature and country-wide roll-out of network systems at regional and local institutions, the greater importance being attached to egovernment on the agenda of Europe, and therefore for all of its Member States, led it to decide to have one expert branch to steer developments across Poland s 16 regions, 315 counties and 2,500 municipalities 16. Local authorities are themselves responsible for drafting roadmaps that facilitate the strategies defined at national level. The Department of Information Technology merely allocated the funding necessary for the local initiatives 17. Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Sweden (18%) all appear not to have clear strategic, tactical and operational management around the development of national network infrastructures. 3.6 The economic perspective: ensure a clear allocation of budget and ICT spend The economic dimension covers the budget available to implement, operate and maintain the existing network infrastructure Figure 3.7: Countries scoring on the economic dimension Researching this specific perspective reveals that forty-three per cent of EU-28-countries are aiming to develop a sophisticated and efficient network infrastructure for public administrations. In these cases, part of the ICT budget is allocated to these developments or improvements. The countries are Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK. According to a Gartner Forecast 18, in 16 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 17 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 18 Enterprise IT Spending by Vertical Industry Market, Worldwide, , 1Q13 Update. 19

20 Ireland, for example, the total amount spent on ICT by government organisations in 2012 was EUR 396 million, which is 0.59% of the country s total Gross National Expenditure. In the Irish government s 2013 expenditure report, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources states that in 2013 they will progress towards the rollout of next generation networks as part of the National Broadband Plan. The government expects a cost saving of EUR 2.8 million in 2013 due to broadcasting. In Slovakia, development of ICT in the state administration is financed mainly from the state budget. Allocation of these financial resources is initially planned to be in the region of an annual amount of EUR 267 million. This represents the financial input of all contributors, including co-financing from the EU Structural Funds 19. The government of Slovakia is actively aiming to attract these EU structural funds for projects to improve Slovakia s digital public administration and infrastructure 20. Malta and Spain (7%) have a highly advanced network infrastructure in place in the form of a national interconnected CUG network. In Malta, the 2010 annual report of MITA (Malta Information Technology Agency) (the most recent annual report available) states that they were continuing to work consistently to improve the overall information security framework of the government s ICT infrastructure through an unprecedented investment of over EUR 2 million in information security tools, technologies, skills and governance. Furthermore MITA had invested over EUR 1 million to enhance Government s Internet infrastructure in terms of security, capacity and high availability. What could be considered as a concern is that, for the vast majority of countries (29%), the budget and management of the ICT spend is unclear. Moreover, it is currently not evident that proper resources are being allocated to building a common network infrastructure. These countries are Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania. Twenty-one per cent of the Member States are at the stage of rolling out their basic network infrastructures across the country and/or improving access to high-speed Internet by the whole population. Large amounts of the budget and ICT spend are allocated in support of that. This applies to Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia

21 4 Creating synergy between networks Synergy between networks. In general synergy between networks is defined as the combination of elements in networks in such a way that the results of the combination are more than the results of the sum of the individual elements. In the context of this study the definition of synergy between networks has been further refined as being the sharing of elements of network infrastructures, specifically the networks connecting public administrations with a view to data exchange. Level of sharing. In order to analyse the different ways of creating synergy between networks, it is necessary to consider the construction of a common network infrastructure. When building and expanding networks for public administrations, synergies may be achieved by sharing certain elements in the Media, Network or Service layers: for example, by the sharing of fibres on the lowest Media layer or the sharing of security measures on the Service layer above. The amount of overlap between the different networks (bandwidth, etc.) and the service requirements (security, authentication, authorisation, etc.) for each specific domain define the actual extent of what can be shared. The figure below shows some examples of communication flows between various domains in the public sector as well as between these and citizens and businesses. Communication: To / From Ministries Government Agencies Ministries Internal Interconnection CUGs Government Agencies Interconnection CUGs Internal Healthcare Interconnection CUGs Interconnection CUGs Police & defence departments Tax department Research & Education Secure gateway Secure gateway Interconnection CUGs Private business Public organisations Via Ministeries Via Ministeries Websites (possibly Websites (possibly with certificates) with certificates) Secure gateway Secure gateway Via local websites Via local websites Via local websites Healtcare Police & defence departments Tax department Research & Education Interconnection CUGs Interconnection CUGs Internal, high bandwitdh, high privacy Secure gateway Secure gateway Secure gateway Internal; high secure and encrypted Interconnection CUGs Interconnection CUGs Interconnection CUGs Secure gateway Secure gateway Via local websites Via local websites Via local websites Secure gateways Gateway Gateway Gateway. Exchange only of images Secure gateway Internal, high secure only only secure websites only secure websites only secure websites only secure websites Learning websites Innovative, high bandwidth: NRENs only secure websites only secure websites Learning websites Private business Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms research CUG gateway Out of scope Out of scope Public organisations Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms, personal Health record Mail & webforms Mail & webforms, annuat tax declaration Open school Out of scope Out of scope Figure 4.1: Communication flows between various domains The focus of an organisation s network depends, to a large extent, on the basic needs in terms of the data to be exchanged as well as the key customers concerned, and their wishes and requirements. Furthermore, this defines the type of network in place, e.g. a business model for Closed User Groups and dark fibre to ensure highly innovative private networks (like the NREN networks) versus a business model dependent on the commercial market, providing a private backbone as well as specific services on top (like the Police & Defence networks). The amount of overlap between the different networks and the service requirements (security, authentication, authorisation, etc.) for each specific public domain (e.g. tax, health, defence) defines the extent to which different layers and parts of layers can be shared. For example, communication between Research & Education institutions requires an advanced network infrastructure to ensure high bandwidth and innovative services. To this end, the NREN community has a business 21

22 Network layers Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan- model in place that basically focuses on advanced technologies for their specific users. This model puts emphasis on network development for a specific Closed User Group rather than development with a view to ensuring a specific market share. Moreover, because of this business model, NRENs are funded by their stakeholders. In this context, stakeholders have a significant influence on future developments, and are interested in receiving an innovative service from their NREN, not in their NREN gaining a large market share with other customers. Police and Defence departments are another example: they require a service and network infrastructure with a prime focus on security, encryption and integrity. This is mainly subsidised by the government and is also not based on any commercial and marketing strategy. In some countries this results in a completely separate physical architecture as a result of security considerations. NAFIN in the Netherlands is one example. In other cases this results in (partly) shared infrastructures with dedicated encryption on different communication layers which ensure that only users in the CUG can communicate with each other in a secure environment (e.g. A.S.T.R.I.D. in Belgium, which is based on the European TETRA standard). The security requirements for creating such a network will naturally impact on its construction. This, in turn, will define the level of permissible synergy with other networks. Types of shared network. There is one major precondition when modulating the level of shared elements in a network: synergy can only be created on the different layers and on the elements where it is not in contradiction with the basic requirements and needs of the domain (stakeholders) and the requisite data exchange. With this in mind, it is assumed that the lowest layer is the one that can be shared most easily. The higher the layer, the more challenging it becomes to create synergy due to the continually increasing requirements of the community and/or domain. In these cases, the importance of tailoring the services to the specific needs of a domain (e.g. Tax, Social Security, R&E) becomes more evident. Moreover, the layer above that might even be tailored to a particular group of public administrations, e.g. municipalities, or provinces and federal states. The figure below presents the anticipated level of sharing within each network layer. Healthcare Police & Defence Ministries Figure 4.2: The expected level of sharing among each network layer, some examples Knowing this, synergies can be achieved in three areas: Gateway functions. Gateway functions operate in the Service layer and play a major main role in securing the connections between CUGs, translating formats (e.g. from plain text to XML, or from Open source document formats to industry specific standards) and/or encryption/decryption. In the higher level of the Service layer, gateway functions can be implemented between the Internet (e.g. for citizens and businesses) and public administrations. For example, a gateway function between the segments Ministries and NRENs will allow communication and data exchange without imposing the need for one network on the lower layer. Also the earlier elaborated DSIs play a role in this area of gateway functions since these contribute to enhancing cross-domain 22

23 interoperability by developing ICT standards, protocols and in essence gateways, to support communication between countries network systems. However gateways are known to be difficult to scale-up, costly and complex to manage. Market-controlled synergy. At the level of the lower Media layers (data streams (Ethernet, SDH) and cables/fibres), synergy can be sought in the commercial market. This can be achieved via the network (service) providers with the assumption of an optimally functioning market. Currently, there are a number of infrastructures and wholesale services available in support of such a synergy. In many European countries these activities used to be dominated by the traditional telecoms operators with significant market dominance. EU Regulation on fixed wholesale service obligations has resulted in common wholesale broadband products. These types of service have helped create a level playing field in basic services such as (dark) fibre and transmission systems. A driver in creating synergy in the Media layers is the possible combination of specialist tasks. The activities needed to enable a Media layer require specialist companies/business units with specific capabilities and focus. For instance, synergy in the lowest (physical) level of a network infrastructure entails excavating and creating ducts in which the cables of different users can be installed simultaneously. At this level the capabilities required are excavating, and laying or blowing cables in ducts. This is normally not seen as the core business of a service provider and is outsourced to a specialised excavation and cable laying company. Synergies can be created when requests are combined and the specialised company lays new cables in one-go. In most countries legislation ((e.g. National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 in Austria) requires that these activities be organised in socalled wholesale units, which have to deliver bit stream connections at the same cost for their own organisation as for new entrants. This is a clear example of legislation pushing market synergies in a market not functioning optimally. The same applies to the creation of dark fibre routes. These are usually created between two customer locations by welding together fibres via different manholes located at end-points. These activities require specific tools and specialised engineers for fibre welding. Synergy could be created by establishing specialised company/business units providing end-to-end dark fibre routes. In this case the company would also act on behalf of different service providers. Government-controlled synergy. A third example is government-controlled synergy. This basically involves creating synergy in the core network, having different segments of users deploying the same core network infrastructure or highway for data exchange. Enabling such synergy requires a dedicated access connection from one or more user locations to the core network. Normally, these so-called last-mile connections cannot be shared and are therefore the most expensive part of a network infrastructure. In order to create synergy, governments would need to stimulate the development of these types of connection. For example, FTTH (Fibre To The Home) projects stimulate the connection of all buildings in a designated neighbourhood to a fibre network. Such a FTTH network acts as the access line (or point) to different core networks. The benefit of a FTTH project is that local governments will receive (relatively cheap) access to a network, which can also be used to connect to a pan-european public backbone network. In certain geographical situations participating in FTTH projects may not be an option. In these cases, the options could be the creation of a last mile operator for public administrations. This last-mile operator for public administrations could also gain the right to connect this last mile of the public administration either to existing backbones or new ones. 23

24 5 Four real-life cases In recent years there have been several initiatives in order to leverage existing network infrastructures and to create synergies. This chapter illustrates four real-life cases across Europe: 1. The case of Logius (Diginetwerk), the Dutch public service provider of egovernment services, which creates synergy by connecting various Closed User Group networks for public administrations to a single closed interconnected network infrastructure at national level. 2. The case of RENATER, the French NREN, which provides its optical fibre network to public administrations and other government institutions instead of only to the Research and Education community. 3. The case of ACOnet, the Austrian NREN, which provides network services not only to the Austrian Research and Education community, but also to public administrations and other government institutions. 4. The case of Belnet, the Belgium NREN, which is a third example of a network service not only for the R&E community but also public administrations. This chapter finishes with an ex-ante Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the costs and benefits when implementing and operating optical fibre-based networks for public administrations. This analysis was primarily carried out based on the experiences of ACOnet, RENATER, HEAnet (NREN in Ireland) and further desk research by the study team. 5.1 Diginetwerk, a Dutch Basic Connection Network for public administrations Logius is the Dutch service provider for egovernment services supporting data exchange between public administrations, citizens and businesses. Logius operates public sector-wide digital solutions, standards, building blocks and networks. The products of Logius relate to network access, data exchange, standardisation and information security. Logius is an income and expenditure service of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BKWI). This Ministry commissions Logius for its services, as do others, such as the Ministries of Economic Affairs; Health, Welfare and Sport; and Education, Culture and Science. The network. Logius focuses on interconnecting and consolidating Closed User Group networks. The deployment of Diginetwerk is an example of the creation of synergy between existing CUGs by building gateway functions between the networks. It connects various existing physical networks of government organisations to enable one single virtual and closed network of government network infrastructures 21. Logius owns Diginetwerk and the BKWI supplies this so-called Basic Connection Network and manages it. This also includes the architecture and the guidelines for use and user support 22. Diginetwerk enables secure connections for information exchange between different public administrations. Every public administration connects to Diginetwerk via a Closed User Group network. The CUGs linked to Diginetwerk are: 1. Haagse Ring, the Interdepartmental network 2. SuwiNet, a network in the Social security domain 3. Gemnet, an inter-municipality network (commercially owned) 4. RINISnet, an interconnection network in the public domain 5. OT-wolk, used by Logius as an interconnection network to other organisations. The figure below provides a high-level representation of Diginetwerk. It incorporates the organisations that manage the network infrastructure at a strategic, tactical and operational level. 21 Retrieved from: 22 Retrieved from: 24

25 Local Area Network Assembly.. PA.. PA.. PA.. PA.. PA.. PA.. PA.. PA.. PA.. Operational: Ivent Operational: BT Operational: KPN Operational: KPN Interconnected systems (CUGs) Haagse Ring OT wolk SuwiNet Gemnet Tactical: Logius Tactical: Logius Tactical: BKWI Tactical: Gemnet Basic CUG Diginetwerk Strategic: Logius Tactical: BKWI Figure 5.1: Overview of the interconnected systems (CUGs) in Diginetwerk The following figure presents the Diginetwerk governance structure. Figure 5.2: Diginetwerk governance structure Government registers, work stations, data entries and applications are connected to Diginetwerk. Citizen to Government (C2G) and Business to Government (B2G) connectivity are not part of Diginetwerk. However, a Basic Infrastructure steering committee led by the National CIO is currently developing a vision on national connectivity using RON2.0. RON2.0 will replace the Haagse Ring and is a closed virtual network composed of several existing main networks for data exchange, speech and video conferencing between central governments. Furthermore it supplies standards and interfaces that enable secure connectivity with other public administrations, citizens and 25

26 business, and also cross-border. Together with the consolidated data centres, RON2.0 forms the foundation for a generic ICT infrastructure for central government with connectivity, throughput and storage facilities. Challenges and lessons learned. With future developments in mind, Logius investigated the use of dark fibres for the transport of back-up data to the shared data centres. Initially, Logius planned to lease these dark fibres from SURFnet, the Dutch NREN, since they have capacity available in the current set-up. However, public procurement rules forbid SURFnet deploying its dark fibres for non-research and education purposes. The reasoning behind this is the fact that SURFnet is a state-subsidised organisation and the use of their dark fibres for public administrations would disrupt open, commercial market competition 23. As an alternative, Logius now leases dark fibres for its back-up data transport from IVENT, which provides the Ministry of Defence IT systems and services. IVENT is a state institution and part of the Commando Diensten Centra (CDC), the shared service centre for Defence. IVENT is the owner of these optical fibres. Some lessons can be distilled from the implementation of Diginetwerk 24 : 1. Participants in a network for public administrations should remain owners of the content distributed in the network. With a grip on the content, it is possible to steer the providers of the network layers that support the distribution of content in the desired direction. Without ownership, there is a risk of loss of control. 2. Implementing and running interconnected networks will only succeed if subcontractors talk to each other and reach agreements. This is a challenge. 3. The network infrastructure architecture should always be the guidebook for implementation and scaling up of network infrastructure. This will ensure a consistent, efficient and manageable infrastructure and avoid an unmanageable, expensive spaghetti-like infrastructure emerging. 5.2 RENATER, the French National network for Technology, Education and Research A good example of the possibilities for creating synergies is the collaboration between RENATER, which is the National Research and Education Network in France, and SCN RIE, the Service à Compétence Nationale - Réseau Interministériel de l Etat. The Réseau Interministériel de l Etat (RIE) is a national network infrastructure that will gradually replace all departmental networks. The RIE was launched in September 2013 and is part of the French modernisation programme for public action SGMAP. RENATER is providing the optical circuits for RIE. It is an example of dark fibre synergy, having a NREN providing its optical fibres to public administrations and government institutions in addition to its initial research and education user base. The network. RENATER offers state-of-the-art connectivity to its participants: public research institutions, educational institutions and private (mainly Research & Development) institutions. RENATER is a non-profit organisation 25. Its members are the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Research, universities and research organisations. RENATER deploys a 1200 km, 10 Gigabyte network with 72 Points of Presence (PoPs) for its participants 26. RENATER offers network and application services, as well as security administration. The figure below presents the coverage of the RENATER network. 23 Moreover, on the basis of a statement from the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal in 2012, SURFnet cannot be classified as a provider of public digital networks. 24 Provided by representatives of Logius. 25 TERENA presentation Patrick Donath Some technical data: 11,900 km of fibre optics, 120 links, 72 points of presence, network: 125 wavelengths (10G), traffic: accumulated external connectivity of nearly 100Gbit/s, 1346 ports in mainland and overseas departments and territories. High-use services: 10,000 electronic certificates supplied in total. Anti-spam: 550,000 accounts, 2,000,000 s filtered per day. Eduroam Wi-Fi access: more than 150 operational establishments, 50,000 requests per day. Universalistes mailing list service: 400,000 subscribers. 26

27 Figure 5.3: The RENATER typology The RIE network will consist of a backbone with 22 links, 3000 km of optical fibres and 14 Points of Presence. It will be able to deliver services up to 10 GB/s. The network technology is aligned with MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6. SCN RIE has been designated to further design and implement the network and shared services. It is also responsible for the operation and management of the network, including guaranteeing proper security. 27 SCN RIE collaborates with RENATER in the development of the RIE network. RENATER provides the specific optical circuits (dedicated wavelengths) for the closed interconnected network and a dedicated RENATER team in support of developing the RIE network. 28 The figure below depicts the high-level coverage of the RIE network. 27 RENATER Presentation. June 7 th 2013: RIE (Réseau Interministériel de l Etat) The French Governmental Network. 28 See also the Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-, Member States Analyses State of Play. 27

28 Figure 5.4: High-level coverage of the RIE network Challenges. The main challenge encountered by RENATER is to stay aligned with the expectations of their original user base: the research and education community. Since the network and service requirements of the R&E community (high bandwidth, exchange of large data, reliable network, etc.) differ from the requirements of public administrations (security, encryption, etc.), some existing users fear the loss of autonomy and of focus on what is most important for the original user base. 5.3 ACOnet, the Austrian Academic Computer Network The Austrian NREN, ACOnet, is a second example of a NREN network provider deploying its infrastructure not only for research and education organisations but also for public organisations. It shows that synergy between domains can be established and benefit both groups of stakeholders. In this case ACOnet creates network synergy by providing its optical fibres with the data link and network layers to public administrations and government institutions in addition to its own research and education institutes. The network. ACOnet is based on a dedicated wavelength-transparent fibre optic backbone with a bandwidth of up to 40 times 10 Gbit/s to all its PoPs (Points of Presence) 29. ACOnet provides layer two and layer three services, and more and more middleware services. Classical application layer services are out of scope, but this might change should there be a greater focus on cloud-based services. ACOnet has signed agreements with the Ministry of Education to serve as a backbone for Internet access for all regional school networks. It also has an agreement with the Ministry of Science to provide halls and off-campus residences with network access, thus effectively subsidising connectivity for university students. ACOnet thus connects all universities and academies, colleges and research institutes, the Austrian schools network (edunet), student dormitories, museums, and various educational and cultural institutions. But it also connects hospitals, ministries, federal agencies, the federal chancery, presidential offices, and provincial governments and 29 A Point of Presence represents the place with the technical supplies where the connection with a network is made. 28

29 administrations. ACOnet does not differentiate between the educational and research organisations and organisations in the government sector. The next figure presents the ACOnet typology 30. Figure 5.5 The ACOnet typology The University of Vienna is the legal owner of ACOnet and holds the contract with Telekom Austria for the optical fibre backbone. ACOnet s management is located there as well and the university operates the network together with the participating institutions. Telekom Austria is the single fibre backbone provider of the network. The University of Vienna signed a framework with Telekom Austria in This framework contract has a duration of years and contains an IRU fallback 31. Challenges and lessons learned. Representatives of ACOnet mention a couple of reasons why ACOnet succeeds in deploying its network to a broad landscape of organisations (with different demands), including Research and Education institutions and public organisations. ACOnet uses a non-exclusive, cooperative and lightweight approach for all its participants. The treatment of every organisation that wants to participate in ACOnet is neutral. In addition, it is important that there be one uniform model to share the expenses between all participants. The cost calculation is based on community download traffic in order to avoid penalising sites with interesting content. There is, however, a potential risk in serving two sectors of clients with different characteristics. Serving the research and education organisations means keeping pace with the ever-changing state-of-the-art technical requirements. The technical requirements of the public administrations and government organisations are mostly average. A service provider serving both segments needs to combine two different types of requirements. ACOnet deals with this by keeping the focus on the research and education community. The emphasis is on meeting the requirements of this community by developing state-of-the-art services and technical solutions. The government sector may use the services and solutions developed for the research and education community. ACOnet is funded 30 Some technical data: Dedicated network infrastructure (ACOnet only), wavelength-transparent (C-Band, 40λ) fibre-pairs (including OAs (conservative, every ~80km). Alcatel-Lucent DWDM chassis (1626LM), active e2e monitoring by TA on a single wavelength, monitoring wavelength available for ACOnet payload (10GigEth sfec Transponder), alien wavelengths allowed within specs). 100Gig-Lambda support can be made available asar. 5000km fibre (one pair active, one pair passive/reserve): ~ 60 optical amplifiers, 42 DWDM shelves (DCU, MUX, Transponder). Practical Alien Wavelength experience: 100Gig ADVA metro WDM technology successfully tested on ACOnet. DWDM backbone link (Alcatel Lucent) between Vienna and Salzburg. 31 Indefeasible Rights of Use. 29