 |
 |
I think that opinions on whether Eduserv's licence fees are "significant" should probably be kept out of this forum, as no-one on this list actually knows what they are. However, whatever adjective you choose to apply, John is correct in saying that each publisher will have to make their own judgment on whether a business case to implement support for federated access management exists. While those calculations may exclude any fees they currently pay to Eduserv, the publishers I have spoken to already recognise our fees are small in comparison to the costs of implementation and ongoing support that publishers will have to bear, and in the short term that may be all that matters to some of them. We're already discussing this with Athens-protected service providers, to see what their needs are, and it's clear that many are looking at this technology. But each publisher's decision-making process will be different to any other, and the 'tipping point' will be different for each one, so the rate of take-up will vary. If they see sufficient demand, they'll do it. As John says, it's simple business economics. Regards Phil Leahy Product Manager Eduserv Athens access management _____ [log in to unmask] tel: +44 (0)1225 474302 fax: +44 (0)1225 474332 http://www.eduserv.org.uk/athens/ _____ Eduserv Athens is a service of Eduserv Technologies Limited -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Paschoud Sent: Monday 11 December 2006 22:33 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Future of the Athens Shibboleth-to-Athens gateway? Rhys, It's understandable that JISC (like any public, taxpayer-funded body) can't promise to fund anything (even JANET) beyond it's planned budget horizon. (The next general election will happen before 2011. What might a future Chancellor decide to do??? Who knows!) I'm confident that all publishers who have been persuaded in the past by JISC to adopt Athens (at a significant annual licence fee, payable to Eduserv), basically to 'buy' access to the UK H/FE market for their products, will be technically capable and persuadable, within the Transition Programme timetable, of implementing Shib-SP instead because: (a) there's no ongoing license fee to pay, and (b) it gives them similar commercial access to all of the non-Athens-using world (i.e. much of continental Europe, most of Scandinavia, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, and India if my discussions last week bear any eventual fruit) that is currently at some stage of adopting Shib-compatible federations. ...so I think simple business economics will do it, without the need for any state (i.e. JISC) intervention. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicole Harris > Sent: 11 December 2006 18:56 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [JISC-SHIBBOLETH] Future of the Athens > Shibboleth-to-Athens gateway? > > > Hi Rhys > > I do mean funding Athens for the operation of the Gateways > (and appropriate development). > > I can only speculate on what a future business model might > look like, but I would not envisage any situation whereby an > institution that has moved across to federated access > management would pay for access to Athens protected resources. > > I really wouldn't want to discuss this further until we have > had a chance to review the fully operational Federation and > the role of the gateways within that in detail with > colleagues at Eduserv. It is however worth stressing again > that the UK Federation and Eduserv Athens are not competing > technologies. The UK Federation is the new framework for > access management within the UK and institutions may chose to > make use of this framework either via open source tools or > via the many options that Eduserv is offering. As such we > are trying to open the market rather than force through a new > competitor. > > Hope that helps > > Nicole > > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 08 December 2006 15:18 > To: Nicole Harris > Cc: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments > Subject: Re: Future of the Athens Shibboleth-to-Athens gateway? > > Quoting Nicole Harris <[log in to unmask]>: > > > Hi Jon > > > > JISC has committed funding to the gateways until July 2008 at this > > stage > (no > > JISC funding for any activity can be positively committed > beyond this > > date as it is the JISC budget renewal point). We have promised to > > continually review requirements for the gateways for three years > > following this > (August > > 2008 - July 2011) subject to requirements and demand. > > If there is still a significant demand we will of course > continue to > > fund the gateways up until 2011. We do not expect to provide funds > > for the gateways as a transitory tool beyond 2011. If the > demand is > > small, we > will > > discuss more appropriate funding models with Eduserv. > > Hi Nicole, > > Can you clear up a slight bit of confusion on our end here... > > When you talk about funding the shib-athens gateway until > 2011, do you > mean funding the development of the gateway, or funding it such that > institutions will not have to pay EduServ for the use of it? > > The gateway will be very much needed until all resources are > available > natively through the UK Federation, so that institutions who need to > access these resources will have to use the gateway until > this is done. > > If institutions have to pay for the use of the gateway from > 2008+, the > business case of "doing" FAM through the UKFed is somewhat > destroyed, > as they will have to be paying EduServ either way, and this can only > severely harm the adoption of FAM in the UK. > > Anyway, if you could clear up that first question for us, > we'd be most > grateful! > > Thanks, > Rhys. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Anything in this message which does not clearly relate to the > official work of the sender's organisation shall be > understood as neither given nor endorsed by that organisation. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unless otherwise agreed expressly in writing by a senior manager of Eduserv, this communication is to be treated as confidential and the information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please contact the sender immediately. No employee or agent is authorised to enter into any binding agreement or contract on behalf of Eduserv or Eduserv Technologies Ltd., unless that agreement is subsequently confirmed by the conclusion of a written contract or the issue of a purchase order.