Agenda:
1
2008/03/25 14:00 - 14:30 Welcome and Discussion of Agenda
During the Welcome, it will be explained that the Retreat has three main parts, with
2
2008/03/25 14:30 - 18:00 GGOS 2020 Summary
3
2008/03/26 09:00 - 10:30 Presentation of the White Papers
4
2008/03/26 11:15 - 16:00 Breakout sessions on White Papers
5
2008/03/26 16:00 - 18:00 Plenary presentation and discussion of the breakout session reports
6
2008/03/27 09:00 - 14:00 Breakout sessions on future GGOS components and functions
7
2008/03/27 14:00 - 18:00 Plenary session: Presentation of the breakout session reports, discussion on
future components
8
2008/03/28 09:00 - 11:00 Plenary session: Preparation of the GGOS Stakeholder Conference
9
2008/03/28 11:00 - 12:30 GGOS TOR: Necessary changes, vision, mission and tasks
10
2008/03/28 12:30 - 13:00 Closing session
Notes:
1 2008/03/25 14:00 - 14:30 Welcome and Discussion of Agenda
Susanna Zerbini opened the meeting at 14:25 and welcomed the participants. She gave some background on the venue, which is an old castle. Hans-Peter Plag also welcomed all participants on behalf of Markus Rothacher, who was delayed due to air traffic problems. He explained the general setting of the meetings, which is structured in three parts:
2 2008/03/25 14:30 - 18:00 GGOS 2020 Summary
He summarized the key points:
GGOS also could provide the reference for geo-locating all sensors. There is a communication channel between IUGG and WMO concerning reference frames, and GGOS could act as the point of contact for this communication. In a more general sense, GGOS could also provide the reference for gravity field and geoid. There is a wide gap between coordinates used in atmospheric models and ITRS and GGOS could work to bridge this gap.
For the implementation of GGOS is Asia, it is important to promote GGOS in Asian countries. Unified local systems based on GGOS architecture could be a way to achieve this.
Hans-Peter Plag then presented tables of the recommendations of the various chapters as collected in Chapter 11 of the GGOS 2020 Reference Document. These recommendations address framework conditions for GGOS, the required infrastructure, organizational issues and future developments of methodology.
In the subsequent discussion, Chris Rizos agreed that an explicit business model for GGOS would be very helpful and valued the presented alternatives, but he found it premature to make a decision on the business model here and now. This view was supported by Michael Pearlman who also emphasized the need to go back to the Services and ask them for their view. Bernd Richter asked whether the ESSP review came up with conclusions concerning the business model, and Hans-Peter Plag reported that the general conclusion was that the ESSP had been too weak in the past leading to too little visibility and a "stronger" buisness model was recommened as a basis for increased visibility. Applying this to GGOS, where visibility is also an issue, would favor the Flagship model for GGOS.
3 2008/03/26 09:00 - 10:30 Presentation of the White Papers
Markus Rothacher opened the session, welcomed everybody back and explained that after the presentation of the three white papers on the new components, these papers would be further discussed in breakout sessions.Hermann Drewes then progressed to conventions and explained that a convention is a set of agreed, stipulated and generally accepted norms, standards and roles. He introduced the synopsis of BSC Terms of Reference, with tasks of the BSC including monitoring adherence to standards, resolutions and conventions, control of main data sets, compare data sets, and review standards, conventions and resolutions in order to keep them up-to-date. Examples of urgently needed resolutions include one on a unified global height system, a standard atmosphere (for geometric and gravimetric use), standards for hydrology.
With respect to membership, he suggested representatives of each IAG Service, each commission, the inter-commission on theory, as well as representatives of external entities adopting standards and conventions. In addition, national and regional representatives should be included.
The BSC should report regularly to the IAG Executive Committee and council. He also suggested regular contacts with other components involved in standards and conventions, including the analysis groups, and regular meetings.
In conclusion, he considered the BSC as crucial for GGOS and IAG in providing reliable and consistent geodetic products. Finally, he presented a number of immediate steps to be addressed by the BSC.
Bernd Richter commented that BIPM was mentioned as a IAG service but it is more, and Hermann Drewes agreed. Hans-Peter Plag commented on the importance of reaching a unified height system, also in the context of GEO. He pointed out that all new components would have to report to the GGOS Steering Committee in addition to the Committees and Councils mentioned in the presentation, and Hermann Drewes agreed to this. Asked by Hans-Peter Plag whether the BSC could be fully virtual of whether there should be physical location with a secretariat, Hermann Drewes expressed the opinion that a central location is needed but not sufficient, since the membership he sketched would sum up to some 15 people. Markus Rothacher also commented on the question of the form of the new components and asked to focus on this question during the breakout sessions.
Markku Poutanen asked about a potential overlap between the BSC and the BCN in terms of standardization of stations, but Michael Pearlman considered conditions at stations too diverse to be easily standardized. Hermann Drewes pointed out that many institutions don't have the means to determine the local ties themselves, so the BCN should include an entity to coordinate or direct the determination. Michael Pearlman responded that this would be a question of resources, which has been a problem over the last few years. Markus Rothacher reminded that IGS has a network coordinator, and asked whether this could be a model for the transition of the WG, or why a Bureau is needed. Michael Pearlman considered a coordinator not sufficient but stated that the BCN would have to rely heavily on the services and their network coordinators, who should in fact be members of the Bureau. He could, however, not see a chance for full time positions for the Bureau members. Zuheir Altamimi voice the opinion that getting the core stations established is the fundamental contribution of GGOS, and Michael Pearlman commented that this is a selling problem. Chopo Ma asked whether the BCN should be involved in the selling, but Michael Pearlman saw this more as a task for higher levels of GGOS. Markus Rothacher pointed out that GGOS is already having an impact on infrastructure development but posed the question whether more dedicated persons for this selling task would be needed.
Richard Gross pointed out that convincing the committees that drive the space agencies, such as the Decadal Study and the new upcoming committee in the U.S. This view was supported by several participants, who emphasized the importance of the science committees of the space agencies but also acknowledged regional differences in the processes that lead to satellite missions.
4 2008/03/26 11:15 - 16:00 Breakout sessions on White Papers
5 2008/03/26 16:00 - 18:00 Plenary presentation and discussion of the breakout session reports
6 2008/03/27 09:00 - 14:00 Breakout sessions on future GGOS components and functions
Bernd Richter asked whether the calls should ask for a limited time. Michael Pearlman responded that the bureau activities need to be long-term, which at could be translated into e.g. five years. Richard Gross asked what would be the procedure at the end of such a term. Markus Rothacher explained that we might face two principle situtation, one being that either the host institution might not be able to commit for another term, or the work of the bureau might not be satisfactory, and in these cases, the GGOS SC would needs to have the option to reissue a CfP. The other might be that the bureau is working fine and the institution is willing to recommit, and in this case, continuation should be more or less automatic. However, the details needs to be considered carefully.
Markus Rothacher proposed to discuss the general issues immediately. He first asked what the bureaus should look like. Michael Pearlman stated that the CNB should consist of a small permanent staff including a head, and should be responsible for some operational work. However, these tasks might also be integrated with the CO. The CNB has a lot of tasks requiring different expertise, and therefore would need to initiate WGs. He emphasized the importance of a liason with and support from the relevant services and commissions. Richard Gross asked how the bureau links to the WG. Michael Pearlman replied that the WG would be gone and fully transitioned into the Bureau. This triggered Hans-Peter Plag to caution the the participants not to call a call a WG-type activity a bureau. A Bureau should have a more formal membership, while a WG is far more relaxed. Richard Gross asked what the tasks for the Bureau would be, if the WG was to continue. Bernd Richter commented that it may be too early to set up a CNB. Markus Rothacher requested that the bureaus should be restricted to the secretariat function, with the head of each bureau being the chair of the associated WG. Subsequently, several models were discussed, with small bureaus initiating WGs, WGs and bureaus in parallel, etc. Hermann Drewes supported the view that a bureau should have a small dedicated staff and a host institution that committed to provide the resources. A WG could be more flexible. Hans-Peter Plag recalled the organizational diagram provided in Chapter 10 of the Reference Document, and based on that diagram, Markus Rothacher and Hans-Peter Plag agreed that the bureaus should mainly have an coordination function. Bernd Richter emphasized the need to specify the tasks of the bureau in the CfP, so that an institution would know what to commit to. Hans-Peter Plag supported this request and made clear that the CfP is not a Call for Participation but rather a Call for Proposals, which requires clear specifications of the tasks.
Summarizing the situation, Michael Pearlman suggested that each group should sit together and break the tasks into those that are for the bureau and those that should remain with the WG. This was accepted.
7 2008/03/27 14:00 - 18:00 Plenary session: Presentation of the breakout session reports, discussion on future components
Michael Pearlman ask how high up in an institution's hierachy a proposal should be signed. Markus Rothacher responded that the signature should be coming from an official high enough to actually commit resources.
With respect to the CfPs, the following action items were agreed after some discussion:
Action Item GGOS-R2008-1: Markus Rothacher will ensure that the introductory part and the closure part for the Calls for Proposals for the new GGOS components is iterated in the EC, finalized and send to those responsible for the CfPs. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Deadline: 2008-05-01.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-2: Michael Pearlman will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Bureau for Networks and Communication (BNC) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Michael Pearlman, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-3: Hermann Drewes will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Bureau for Standards and Conventions (BSC) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Hermann Drewes, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-4: Srinivas Bettadpur will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Bureau for Satellite and Space Missions (BSSM) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Srinivas Bettadpur, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-5: Dirk Behrend will finalize the Call for Proposals for the GGOS Coordination Office together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Dirk Behrend, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-6: Bernd Richter will finalize the Call for Proposal for the GGOS Web Portal (as part of the CfP for the CO) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as any proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Bernd Richter, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-7: Markus Rothacher will ensure that the Calls for Proposals are iterated in the GGOS Steering Committee, finalized by the GGOS EC, and widely published in the geodetic community, with the deadline for proposal submission being set to October 1, 2008. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Deadline: 2008-07-01.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-8: The Executive Committee will establish a list of independent evaluators for the proposals submitted in response to the Call for Proposals and submit this list for endorsement to the Steering Committee. Responsible: Executive Committee, Deadline: 2008-06-30.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-9: Michael Pearlman will check all Call for Proposals asked for in AIs GGOS-2008-2 to -6 for consistency with each other. Responsible: Michael Pearlman, Deadline: 2008-06-30.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-10: Rene Forsberg will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Central Bureau of the IGFS together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is widely published in the geodetic community Responsible: Rene Forsberg, Deadline: 2008-06-30.
8 2008/03/28 09:00 - 11:00 Plenary session: Preparation of the GGOS Stakeholder Conference
James Park identified the Stakeholder Conference as a chance to define contact points, and a first step towards a round table and task force under the BCN. He considered the idea of the Stakeholder Conference positively as a means to promote the mission and function of GGOS and its contribution to GEOSS/GEO. Chris Rizos asked whether the round table could be started earlier during AOGS.
Markku Poutanen introduced NGOS (see pdf ) and emphasized the difficulties in convincing the community of the need for such systems. The Stakeholder Conference would be useful to emphasize the contributions of and requirements for GGOS.
9 2008/03/28 11:00 - 12:30 GGOS TOR: Necessary changes, vision, mission and tasks
Action Item GGOS-R2008-11: Hans-Peter Plag will finalize the GGOS vision statement together with Srinivas Bettadpur and Steve Kenyon Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2008-03-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-12: Richard Gross will finalize the GGOS mission statement together with Erricos Pavlis Responsible: Richard Gross, Deadline: 2008-03-31.
10 2008/03/28 12:30 - 13:00 Closing session
Action Item GGOS-R2008-13: Markus Rothacher together with the GGOS EC will draft the updated ToR for iteration with the GGOS SC. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Executive Committee, Deadline: 2008-07-01.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-14: Markus Rothacher will ensure that the updated ToR are iterated with the SC and EC and put to vote to the SC. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Deadline: 2008-09-15.
After that, the list of actions items resulting from the Retreat was
Action Item GGOS-R2008-1: Markus Rothacher will ensure that the introductory part and the closure part for the Calls for Proposals for the new GGOS components is iterated in the EC, finalized and send to those responsible for the CfPs. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Deadline: 2008-05-01.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-2: Michael Pearlman will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Bureau for Networks and Communication (BNC) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Michael Pearlman, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-3: Hermann Drewes will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Bureau for Standards and Conventions (BSC) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Hermann Drewes, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-4: Srinivas Bettadpur will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Bureau for Satellite and Space Missions (BSSM) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Srinivas Bettadpur, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-5: Dirk Behrend will finalize the Call for Proposals for the GGOS Coordination Office together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as the proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Dirk Behrend, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-6: Bernd Richter will finalize the Call for Proposal for the GGOS Web Portal (as part of the CfP for the CO) together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is consistent with the other CfPs as well as any proposed changes of the GGOS ToR. Responsible: Bernd Richter, Deadline: 2008-05-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-7: Markus Rothacher will ensure that the Calls for Proposals are iterated in the GGOS Steering Committee, finalized by the GGOS EC, and widely published in the geodetic community, with the deadline for proposal submission being set to October 1, 2008. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Deadline: 2008-07-01.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-8: The Executive Committee will establish a list of independent evaluators for the proposals submitted in response to the Call for Proposals and submit this list for endorsement to the Steering Committee. Responsible: Executive Committee, Deadline: 2008-06-30.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-9: Michael Pearlman will check all Call for Proposals asked for in AIs GGOS-2008-2 to -6 for consistency with each other. Responsible: Michael Pearlman, Deadline: 2008-06-30.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-10: Rene Forsberg will finalize the Call for Proposals for the Central Bureau of the IGFS together with others, and he will ensure that this CfP is widely published in the geodetic community Responsible: Rene Forsberg, Deadline: 2008-06-30.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-11: Hans-Peter Plag will finalize the GGOS vision statement together with Srinivas Bettadpur and Steve Kenyon Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2008-03-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-12: Richard Gross will finalize the GGOS mission statement together with Erricos Pavlis Responsible: Richard Gross, Deadline: 2008-03-31.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-13: Markus Rothacher together with the GGOS EC will draft the updated ToR for iteration with the GGOS SC. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Executive Committee, Deadline: 2008-07-01.
Action Item GGOS-R2008-14: Markus Rothacher will ensure that the updated ToR are iterated with the SC and EC and put to vote to the SC. Responsible: Markus Rothacher, Deadline: 2008-09-15.
End of Minutes