Member Survey

The survey instrument consisted of a main section with 70 rating-scale and open-ended questions, supplemented by four smaller sub-surveys on Network Services, Network Performance, Corporate Relations, and Member Communications. It was developed and administered using the Survey Monkey online survey tool. In addition to providing basic demographic data, respondents were asked to give feedback on the services their organization values, how their organization participates in Internet2-related activities, how their organization learns about Internet2-related opportunities, the services they use, and their future needs.

The survey was announced in mid-July 2005 to Internet2 Executive Liaisons, with targeted invitations going out for the sub surveys (e.g., the e2eperf-interest@internet2.edu list for the Network Performance survey). A second invitation was issued to the membership at large on August 1. The survey was closed on August 12.

When reporting individual responses, individual and organization names have been removed to protect anonymity of respondents.

If you have questions about the survey process or results, contact us at survey@internet2.edu.

Response Summary

136 individual responses were received by the deadline, of which:

80.8% were from University Members

5.4% were from Corporate Members

8.5% were from Affiliate Members

1.5% were from Association Members

3.8% were not sure

Of the 105 responses from University members, slightly more than half (50.5%) were from Doctoral-Research/Extensive institutions.

Type of Member Representative

Of the 100 respondents who identified themselves as Internet2 Member Representatives, 62 (62%) also identified themselves as the Internet2 Executive Liaison. (Please note, someone could identify him/herself in more than one category.)

If you are an Internet2 Member Representative, please select all that apply.

Response Percent

Response Total

Executive Liaison

62%

Engineering Representative

29%

End-to-End Performance Representative

13%

Applications Representative

17%

Middleware Representative

16%

Government Relations

Public Affairs

Billing Contact

27%

Total Respondents

100

(skipped this question)

Positions held

Respondents were asked to identify what positions they hold in their organizations. While it was sometimes difficult to categorize a reported position, e.g., “Manager,” it was clear that CIOs/Directors of IT represented the largest group of respondents, with 37 identifiable as such. Directors of Network Services represented the next largest group (17), followed by Network Engineers (14).

To view all responses to this question, please click here.

Connection to Internet2 backbone; office/lab Internet2 connectivity

92.1% of those responding indicated that their organization is connected to the Internet2 Abilene backbone network, with 85.6% reporting that their offices or labs have Internet2 connectivity.

Key Messages

Several key messages stood out in the first major review of the results:

· Respondents overall had a very favorable perception of Internet2, and its services and activities.

· Production networking is highly important to the community and seen as fundamentally enabling.

· Abilene’s value was ranked very highly, specifically for network-dependent research and having access to advanced services (e.g., multicast).

· There are concerns about the cost of Abilene, with respect to the apparent need on some campuses.

· Respondents ranked Internet2’s “convening function” highly, as it supported relationships among institutions.

· Internet2’s services and initiatives were strong positives, and the broad scope was a positive for some, though a negative for others.

· Communication activities rated highly, and meetings and workshops were very highly valued. Member meetings in particular ranked very high, including the current schedule of two per year.

· There is some concern that Internet2, as an organization, is too ‘closed,’ with decisions made by a small group of insiders.

Perception of Internet2

The first major section was devoted to asking a series of specific questions about Internet2’s value and services, most of which were in the form of statements to which respondents could indicate various levels of agreement. Respondents reported a positive perception of Internet2.

What is your perception of the following organizations and activities?

Very Positive

Positive

Neutral

Somewhat Negative

Negative

Very Negative

Don't Know

Response Total

Internet2

42% (40)

47% (45)

5% (5)

1% (1)

0% (0)

National LambdaRail

26% (25)

39% (37)

21% (20)

5% (5)

3% (3)

1% (1)

5% (5)

HOPI

12% (11)

17% (16)

34% (32)

1% (1)

0% (0)

36% (34)

InCommon

7% (7)

22% (21)

29% (28)

1% (1)

0% (0)

41% (39)

The Quilt

25% (24)

29% (28)

22% (21)

2% (2)

1% (1)

0% (0)

20% (19)

Shibboleth

26% (25)

35% (34)

19% (18)

1% (1)

0% (0)

18% (17)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Does Internet2 provide needed capabilities and services?

The next question asked respondent to indicate their level of agreement with the statement “Internet2 provides the capabilities and services my organization needs.” 84.7% indicted they agree or somewhat agree.

“Internet2 provides the capabilities and services my organization needs”

58.2% agree; 26.5% somewhat agree

Because of the range of useful feedback in the specific comments provided, 20 of the 47 received are included here:

Internet2 provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs.

The Internet2 organization has always been helpful with resources and new ideas.

We use it as a 'fat pipe' almost exclusively.

Decisions are made on network expansion and initiatives that raise our costs. The decisions are driven by only a few and made without our participation or knowledge. In addition, the price point for I2 connection remains relatively high when compared to my University's perception of advantages. Few faculty and researchers need the network. The Quilt has offered significant price point advantages for commodity internet. And, we are extremely pleased with our provider. NLR is of interest to one (1) researcher, but the price is too high.

Internet2 has provided excellent support for local initiatives as well as national projects. I2 initiatives have been helpful.

Much of research and instruction involves collaboration with peers at other institutions. Internet2 allows for interaction in a focused environment. The supporting programs and information are sources for outside perspectives.

Middleware discussion, K-20 initiatives, and professional networking...as well as high speed network access.

The interaction with other R1 Universities and like activities is nice. The questions are; how the advanced applications progress, how and to what degree Abilene continues to be a benefit verses commodity networks, how the merger occurs with both Abilene and NLR maintaining a clear mission and goals.

We need fewer "facilitators" and more "doers.” I would like to see I2 running useful bootstrap services - e.g., have stuff operating an InQueue server, middleware enabled mailing lists, collaboration software etc. Use would be by working groups and planning groups, and could be used to demonstrate advanced applications on campuses without having to install the entire infrastructure yourself just to do the demonstration.

I2 also provides services that I don't need.

Too much focus away from providing network services.

The most important service is the provision of high speed networking.

It is absolutely critical to our relatively rural, high-intensity research university to have high-bandwidth connectivity to the outside world via Internet2

The only use to date for Internet2 is for large exchange of data. We do not use it for anything more elaborate.

Abilene is a key resource, and the I2 Member Meetings, Joint Techs Meetings, and various working groups are tremendously useful.

Mild concern that much happens within small circles within Internet2 and that regular, participating members can be left in the dark until after decisions have been made.

I believe that we need to "push the envelope" of networking more, as NLR is proposing to do. I believe that there are national, economic benefits to be accrued by the US being leader in networking in the world, and I feel that the limitations imposed upon Abilene by Qwest have not allowed this objective to be met.

It provides a subset of what we'd like, but certainly doesn't address the breadth we need.

We are very interested in the proposed merger of Internet2 and the NLR.

Internet2 is very expensive for the limited return our University gets on its investment.

We have been very impressed with the ongoing communication and wide scope of initiatives under I2.

To view all responses to this question, please click here.

Satisfaction with Abilene

Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with the Abilene Network, as shown in the following chart:

The Abilene Network provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

55.2%

Somewhat Agree

28.1%

Neutral

7.3%

Somewhat Disagree

Disagree

4.2%

Don't Know

4.2%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

“The Abilene Network provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs”

55.2% agree; 28.1% somewhat agree

Again, specific comments are excerpted here because they provided informative feedback.

The Abilene network provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs.

High bandwidth/low latency backbone with native multicast support is really a prerequisite for a wide range of applications that we expect to need in the next few years - distance learning, VoIP and other initiatives included.

The AUP has caused problems with other government organizations.

NLR is a response to the limitations of I2/Abilene to a large extent

It is becoming less compelling for us on a cost basis.

Our sense is that our connection is necessary for our high performance computing researchers to send data and that the remainder of the university is really unaware of Abilene's existence.

Abilene is a bit expensive for what we use it for and we haven't seen a need for lambda service for our downstream members, but we appreciate the need for a national testbed and think it is important to be a part of it. We do not see value in joining NLR and all of the higher education campuses in Connecticut agree at this time.

Abilene had provided excellent, high-performance network service.

Without the Abilene backbone, most of what we have done in using successfully Internet2 could not have been done at all.

We have not had a need for excessive bandwidth as yet. Network administrators and managers have a love-hate relationship with Internet2. The business case for putting in very high speed lines to provide service to persons seen as dilettantes (those working on network video based projects only tangentially supporting their research endeavors) is weak and the costs for implementation are great in a time of scarce resources and increased cybersecurity threats. For those projects which have flourished (multicast digital radio and others) Abilene has been great. I've always had a difficult time understanding what NLR was supposed to be providing that was unique and couldn't be done better by Abilene. It just seemed like NLR was a shill for universities to cover the purchase of a lot of dark fiber at cheap rates. It seemed like universities were reinventing the wheel (Abilene). That's the main reason we didn't take part in NLR.

To view all responses which elaborated on this question, please click here .

Value of advanced networking

Respondents in general reported finding significant overall value of advanced networking over that of the commodity network.

Access to advanced networking services has enabled my organization to achieve goals and milestones it could not have accomplished using commodity networking services.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

53.6%

Somewhat Agree

25.8%

Neutral

11.3%

Somewhat Disagree

2.1%

Disagree

2.1%

Don't Know

5.2%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

“Access to advanced networking services has enabled my organization to achieve goals and milestones it could not have accomplished using commodity networking services”

53.6% agree; 25.8% somewhat agree

Again, specific comments are excerpted here because they provided informative feedback.

Access to advanced networking services has enabled my organization to achieve goals and milestones it could not have accomplished using commodity networking services.

Abilene's great benefit has been that its access was transparent to our users. This is also its downfall since researchers do not know they are using it or what they are getting. in that respect, it is more about 'adequate bandwidth' than it is about 'advanced networking services'

There has been great excitement among scientists and about what we have been able to achieve working collaboratively real-time in data mining and data storage.

Only a few faculty have used the service and most use has been for file transfers that could have been accomplished over commodity Internet.

Some research projects have benefited from the higher performance and lower latency connectivity available through Abilene. We have not taken advantage of many of Abilene's advanced services, however.

We rely on I2 to deliver reliable videoconferences in support of instruction, a service that wasn't possible with the commodity Internet.

We have been able to provide instructional access via multi media over I2 that would not have been possible on commodity internet.

There's no way our multicast efforts could have proceeded without Abilene's capabilities.

To view all responses which elaborated on this question, please click here.

Value of Relationships Maintained by Internet2

A. Higher education relationships

Respondents reported that they strongly appreciate and value the relationships within the higher education community maintained by Internet2; 89.6% agreed or somewhat agreed as shown in the following dashboard indicator and chart:

“The relationships within the higher-education community that Internet2 maintains and fosters are important to my organization”

66.7% agree; 22.9% somewhat agree

The relationships within the higher-education community that Internet2 maintains and fosters are important to my organization.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

66.7%

Somewhat Agree

22.9%

Neutral

6.2%

Somewhat Disagree

Disagree

2.1%

Don't Know

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

To view all responses from those who chose to elaborate on this question, please click here.

B. International relationships

Respondents also reported that they strongly appreciate and value the international relationships maintained by Internet2; 89.6% agreed or somewhat agreed:

“The international connectivity and relationships that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization”

55.2% agree; 26% somewhat agree

The international connectivity and relationships that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

55.2%

Somewhat Agree

26%

Neutral

14.6%

Somewhat Disagree

Disagree

2.1%

Don't Know

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

To view all responses from those who chose to elaborate on this question, please click here.

C. Corporate relationships

Respondents reported to a somewhat lesser extent that they appreciate and value the corporate relationships maintained by Internet2; 60% agreed or somewhat agreed as shown in the following dashboard indicator and chart:

“The corporate relationships that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization”

27.4% agree; 32.6% somewhat agree

The corporate relationships that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

27.4%

Somewhat Agree

32.6%

Neutral

28.4%

Somewhat Disagree

4.2%

Disagree

4.2%

Don't Know

3.2%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

To view all responses from those who chose to elaborate on this question, please click here.

D. K2 education community connections

Respondents also reported to a somewhat lesser extent that they appreciate and value the connections to the broader K20 education community maintained by Internet2; again, 60% agreed or somewhat agreed:

“The connections to the broader K20 education community that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization”

30.5% agree; 29.5% somewhat agree

The connections to the broader K20 education community that Internet2 maintains and facilitates are important to my organization.

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

30.5%

Somewhat Agree

29.5%

Neutral

18.9%

Somewhat Disagree

5.3%

Disagree

9.5%

Don't Know

6.3%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

To view all responses from those who chose to elaborate on this question, please click here.

Value of Internet2

The next several questions asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with a number of statements, as follows:

“Internet2 should support “common good” activities that are not being done by other organizations or by individual institutions.”

60.4%agree, 18.8% somewhat agree

To view all responses from those who chose to elaborate on this question, please click here.

“Internet2 membership enhances my organization’s ability to compete for funding and research opportunities.”

52.1%agree, 27.1% somewhat agree

To view all responses which elaborated on this question, please click here .

“Internet2 membership enhances my organization’s ability to build and leverage partnerships”

54.2% agree, 25% somewhat agree

To view all responses which elaborated on this question, please click here.

Participation in Internet2 Activities and Initiatives

The survey yielded interesting information regarding the extent to which members participate in Internet2 activities and initiatives. As shown below, the largest group of respondents indicated only limited participation, although more than half indicated either very active (15.7%) or active (38.2%) participation.

How extensively does your organization participate in Internet2 activities?

Response Percent

Response Total

Very Active Participation

15.7%

Active Participation

38.2%

Limited Participation

42.7%

No Participation

3.4%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

To what extent does your organization participate in the following Internet2 activities?

Very Active Participation

Active Participation

Limited Participation

No Participation

Response Total

Meetings and workshops

25% (22)

45% (40)

26% (23)

3% (3)

Internet2 Days at your Organization

6% (5)

14% (12)

31% (27)

50% (44)

Middleware Initiative

12% (10)

24% (21)

31% (27)

33% (28)

End-to-end Performance Initiative

4% (3)

8% (7)

36% (30)

52% (44)

Security Initiative

12% (10)

18% (15)

35% (30)

Next generation network infrastructure

8% (7)

21% (18)

33% (28)

37% (31)

Total Respondents

Does your organization participate in Internet2 Working Groups, Special Interest Groups (SIGs), or Birds of a Feather Groups (BoFs)?

Yes

Response Total

Working Groups

53% (47)

47% (41)

Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

38% (33)

62% (53)

Birds of a Feather Groups (BoFs)

38% (32)

62% (53)

Total Respondents

To view the specific Working Groups, BoFs, and SIGs in which respondents participate, please click here .

Satisfaction with participation in Internet2

It was important to assess not just the level of participation in Internet2 activities and initiatives, but also the degree of satisfaction:

How satisfied are you with the level of your organization’s participation in Internet2?

Response Percent

Response Total

Very Satisfied

18.2%

Somewhat Satisfied

42%

Neutral

11.4%

Somewhat Dissatisfied

22.7%

Not Satisfied

5.7%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

How satisfied are you with the level of your organization’s participation in Internet2?

18.2% very satisfied; 42% somewhat satisfied

The survey asked how satisfaction might be increased. Respondents cited a need for better communication and a need to get faculty more involved, but many acknowledged staffing and resource constraints.

To view all responses to this question, please click here .

Which types of events are highly valued by your organization (check all that apply)?

Response Percent

Response Total

Internet2-sponsored virtual events

43.4%

Internet2-sponsored in-person meetings and conferences

78.9%

Internet2-sponsored workshops and hands-on training

65.8%

Internet2 Days at your organization

18.4%

Internet2 presentations held in conjunction with other conferences or meetings (e.g. EDUCAUSE).

61.8%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

The responses suggest that members participate most extensively in (and value most) in-person meetings, workshops, and Working Groups, with moderate levels of participation in middleware and security initiatives, but little participation or value found in Internet2 Days. Meetings and workshops enjoyed the most active participation, with 70% reporting either very active (25%) or active (45%) participation. Half the respondents indicated no participation in Internet2 Days.

More than half the respondents (53%) reported participation in an Internet2 Working Group, with much less participation reported in BoFs and SIGs.

Those respondents who reported highly valuing Internet2 presentations held in conjunction with other conferences and meetings (61.8%) were asked to identify the conferences at which they would like to see Internet2 presentations. 28 of the 43 respondents mentioned EDUCAUSE.

To see the full list of conferences mentioned, please click here .

Content preferred at Internet2 meetings

Respondents expressed a preference for meetings that offer both general/overview and technical/specialized content:

I prefer Internet2 events or meetings that offer

Response Percent

Response Total

General/Overview Content

Technical/Specialized Content

14%

Both

79.1%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Respondents also expressed a preference to continue the twice-annual schedule of Internet2 member meetings:

Internet2 member meetings are held twice annually. Does this schedule meet your needs?

Response Percent

Response Total

Yes

83.7%

16.3%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

For those that answered “no” to the previous question, most expressed a preference for only one meeting a year; however, at least one respondent would like to see three to four meetings a year.

To see a full list of responses, please click here .

Potential barriers to participation in Internet2

The survey asked whether respondents felt their organization’s IT department and infrastructure provide adequate support for the needs of their researchers; the most common response was “Somewhat Agree” (46%) with “Neutral” responses (26.4%) outweighing “Agree” responses (17.2%).

To what extent do you agree with this statement? "My organization's IT department and IT infrastructure provide adequate support for the needs of our researchers."

Response Percent

Response Total

Agree

17.2%

Somewhat Agree

46%

Neutral

26.4%

Somewhat Disagree

9.2%

Disagree

1.1%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

When asked what barriers exist for people who want to volunteer for or participate in Internet2 activities, the responses were predictable, with time and resources leading the list. Many reported that no real barriers exist, though, and that it is more an issue of choice or prioritization. More than one response, however, noted a perception that Internet2 is a “closed” organization, “run by a small clique.”

To view all responses to this question, please click here .

The survey also asked what might be needed from Internet2 to encourage greater engagement in Internet2 activities. Several responses suggested the need to make a clear case for the value of participation.

To view all responses to this question, please click here .

Collaboration enabled by Internet2

The survey asked questions about opportunities for collaboration within Internet2, and most respondents reported that they have participated in Internet2-related collaborations.

Has your organization collaborated with other Internet2 member organizations on projects and activities?

Response Percent

Response Total

Yes

70.1%

12.6%

Not Sure

17.2%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Learning about Internet2 Opportunities

The next section of the survey asked a series of questions about Internet2 communications. The responses suggested that, while the Internet2 website and in-person meetings are relatively appreciated as a means of receiving information, email and e-newsletters are the most preferred means. News streams (RSS feeds), printed publications, and quarterly publication mailings were all reported to be preferred less, as shown in the following chart (note that a lower score indicates a higher preference).

In general, how do you prefer to receive news or other information regarding areas of Internet2 that are of interest to you? Please rank your preferences from 1 (most preferred) to 7 (least preferred).

Most - 1

7 - Least

Response Average

Email and E-Newsletters

75% (57)

14% (11)

3% (2)

0% (0)

4% (3)

0% (0)

4% (3)

1.59

In-person meetings

11% (7)

21% (13)

27% (17)

19% (12)

8% (5)

6% (4)

3.41

News streams (e.g., RSS feeds)

6% (4)

11% (7)

14% (9)

16% (10)

22% (14)

16% (10)

4.45

Printed publications

0% (0)

7% (4)

12% (7)

19% (11)

26% (15)

24% (14)

12% (7)

4.84

Quarterly publication mailings

0% (0)

11% (8)

15% (11)

23% (16)

27% (19)

18% (13)

6% (4)

4.42

Websites

14% (11)

36% (27)

34% (26)

9% (7)

5% (4)

1% (1)

0% (0)

2.59

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Internet2 website

The largest group of respondents reported use of the Internet2 website monthly (66.7%), with a relatively small number reporting weekly use (19%), and 13.1% reporting that they never use it.

How often do you visit the Internet2 website?

Response Percent

Response Total

Daily

1.2%

Weekly

19%

Monthly

66.7%

Never

13.1%

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

The vast majority of those who do use the Internet2 website, however, reported they’re usually able to find what they are looking for (89.3%).

Few suggestions for making the Internet2 website more useful were offered; perhaps the most interesting ones suggested more information about advanced applications in actual operation at member universities.

Those the full set of responses to this question, please click here .

The survey asked what other kinds of learning opportunities, such as workshops, best practices, or case studies, might Internet2 provide to the community; respondents acknowledged all such learning opportunities as being useful.

To view all responses to this question, please click here .

The survey asked for suggestions about what could be done to help communicate the value of Internet2 membership more broadly. Some of the more interesting suggestions included giving specific examples of how other universities have found value, presenting the information in non-technical terms easily understood by non-technical university leaders, and convening groups of members to seek their on-going input on this and other matters.

To view all responses to this question, please click here .

Respondents overwhelmingly expressed an interest in knowing how other Internet2 members are using their advanced network connections (95.1%). 68.4% indicated a willingness to share with others how they are using their advanced network connections.

Use of Internet2 Services

Most respondents (91%) indicated that they use advanced networking connectivity to connect to US research universities, but all types of networks and organizations are the target of connectivity as well, as shown in the following chart:

My organization uses advanced network connectivity to connect to:

Current

Future

Not Sure

Never

Response Total

U.S. research universities

91% (73)

5% (4)

0% (0)

4% (3)

Broad U.S. educational communities, including state education networks

63% (46)

21% (15)

8% (6)

Other research and education networks throughout the world

77% (60)

12% (9)

9% (7)

3% (2)

Government Agencies

71% (55)

9% (7)

14% (11)

6% (5)

Museums and Libraries

56% (42)

16% (12)

24% (18)

4% (3)

Research Laboratories

74% (56)

13% (10)

11% (8)

3% (2)

K-20 partners

43% (31)

24% (17)

22% (16)

11% (8)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

The survey also tried to identify the prevalence of advanced applications in use. Distance education and bulk data transfer were the most often cited, with multi-site simulation and virtual reality, along with advanced content delivery, the least reported in use.

My organization uses the following advanced applications:

Current

Future

Not Sure

Never

Response Total

Advanced content delivery

20% (15)

26% (19)

42% (31)

12% (9)

Bulk data transfer

67% (50)

9% (7)

19% (14)

5% (4)

Distance education

67% (52)

12% (9)

10% (8)

12% (9)

Grid computing

38% (29)

30% (23)

18% (14)

13% (10)

Interactive collaboration

63% (48)

20% (15)

12% (9)

5% (4)

Multi-site simulation

14% (10)

27% (20)

46% (34)

14% (10)

Remote instrumentation

33% (25)

24% (18)

28% (21)

15% (11)

Scientific visualization

32% (24)

29% (22)

25% (19)

13% (10)

The Internet2 Commons

31% (23)

24% (18)

29% (22)

16% (12)

Uncompressed audio/video streaming

45% (35)

26% (20)

18% (14)

10% (8)

Virtual reality

19% (14)

25% (18)

37% (27)

19% (14)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

Use of Abilene Network services and Middleware

The survey also asked about use of specific Abilene Network services, as well as Middleware tools and services. Of the Abilene Network Services, Multicast was cited most often for current and future use, followed by IPv6. Among Middleware tools and services, Shibboleth is the most reported in use, with 29% reporting current use, and 40% reporting future use.

My organization uses the following Abilene Network services:

Current

Future

Not Sure

Never

Response Total

IPv6

19% (15)

47% (36)

23% (18)

10% (8)

Multicast

65% (51)

18% (14)

9% (7)

Network measurement (e.g., Abilene Observatory)

30% (22)

19% (14)

33% (24)

18% (13)

Testing of advanced services

30% (22)

28% (21)

14% (10)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

My organization uses the following Middleware tools and services:

Current

Future

Not Sure

Never

Response Total

InCommon

16% (12)

20% (15)

34% (25)

30% (22)

InQueue

8% (6)

16% (12)

49% (36)

27% (20)

Shibboleth

29% (22)

40% (31)

14% (11)

17% (13)

USHER

3% (2)

11% (8)

57% (42)

30% (22)

Total Respondents

(skipped this question)

The survey asked about the kinds of Internet2 services and resources that respondents may have used. None were reported to be used extensively; most respondents answered “Not Sure.”

My organization requests the following services and resources for events at my organization: