1. EPOS Status at M18: assessing the Preparatory Phase Advisory Board Meeting Rome, May 31 st 2012

2. Proposed Meeting Agenda 10:30-11:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks and reporting procedure (M. Cocco) 11:30-12:30 Questions and Discussion 12:30-13:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation & discussion) 13:00:13:30 The Advisory Board evaluation: Electronic form & procedure (presentation of the document & discussion) 13:30 Lunch 14:30-15:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showing the EPOS contents. 15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion 15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report

3. New Meeting Agenda 10:30-11:00 The Research Infrastructures Data base for EPOS: RIDE showing the EPOS contents. 11:00-11:30 The Advisory Board evaluation: Electronic form & procedure (presentation of the document & discussion) 11:30-12:30 EPOS PP Achievements, Status of the PP, bottlenecks and reporting procedure (M. Cocco) 12:30-13:00 Questions and Discussion 13:00 Lunch 14:30-15:00 Future Activities & Next Challenges (short presentation & discussion) 15:00- 15:30 Free Discussion 15:30-16:00 Planning the next actions to finalize the evaluation report

4. EPOS challenges Geological and Surface Dynamics data Other Geosciences data Analytical and Experimental Laboratories Geodetic data Volcano Observations Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures ICT & e-RI Facilities Satellite Information data

5. EPOS challenges Geological and Surface Dynamics data Other Geosciences data Analytical and Experimental Laboratories Geodetic data Volcano Observations Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures ICT & e-RI Facilities Satellite Information data EPOS is one of the most complex and ambitious projects of all ESFRI initiatives!

6. Why EPOS? Integration of the existing national and trans-national RISs Interoperability and services to a broad community of users Open access to a multidisciplinary research infrastructure Progress in Science by providing prompt and continuous availability of high quality data and the means to process and interpret them Data infrastructures and novel core services, which will contribute to information, dissemination, education and training. Implementation plans, which require strategic investment in research infrastructures at national and international levels. Societal contributions: hazard assessment and risk mitigation

7. EPOS Framework M1-18

8. EPOS gov. structure

9. The EPOS PP governing structure The Project Development Board (PDB) The Inter-Activity Preparatory Council (IAPC) Board of Governmental Representatives (BGR) The Project Management Office The Advisory Board The Data Providers’ and Users’ Commission The ICT Board ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

10. How EPOS works? WP7 EPOS ARCHITECTURE WP8 OUTREACH & DISSEMINATION

11. EPOS Roadmap May 2012 July 2013 May 2014 Technical & financial requirements Promotion & participation

12. The EPOS PP objectives 1.Management of the preparatory phase 2.Legal & Governance models 3.Financial work 4.Technical work 5.Strategic work 6.Outreach & Dissemination

13. Preliminary Achievements We have involved the data providers and identified and partially involved users (our stakeholders categories I &II). We have completed the first inventory of the RIs we are going to integrate in EPOS. The revision and the update of the database are in progress (> 230 questionnaires collected so far) Most of monitoring infrastructures and existing facilities are operational. Data are already available and data centres exist. Several web-services are operational (see ORFEUS/EIDA for seismology). We are approaching Governmental stakeholders, funding agencies and industry (categories III & IV). We are working to design of the EPOS Core Services. We are promoting a community building by structuring our community.

14. Preliminary Achievements We have officially involved EuroGeoSurveys in WG3. We have involved national space agencies and ESA in WG8. EPOS has established effective links to several European Projects (NERA, REAKT, SHARE, QUEST, TopoMod, TopoEurope, MEMoVolc,....). EPOS is a GEO participating institution and it is directly involved in the Supersites Task in the GEO Work Plan. EPOS is involved in a bilateral transatlantic cooperation with US National Science Foundation and in particular with EarthScope. EPOS is collaborating with other Global initiatives for Data Infrastructures and for hazard and risk (FDSN in GEO, GEM,....). EPOS is participating to EC e-science projects (EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS). EPOS supported the VERCE EC project on data massive applications.

15. 2. Legal & Governance models WP2, WP3

16. Summing up WP2/3/4 WPObjectivesOutcome Legal work (WP 2)-Propose the most suitable legal option, tailored to the EPOS science plan & suitable for EPOS partners -Regulate & frame the relations between the EPOS structure and the national networks, RIs and Legal recommandations Governance (WP 3)-Propose a structure that is workable while reflecting the complexity of EPOS -Guarantee that the different interests (national, disciplinary…) are represented and balanced -Ensure that this structure not only deals with the daily management but also enforces a scientific vision Governance structure Financial Plan (WP 4)-Estimate of the global budget of the national networks in order to demonstrate the added value of EPOS Core Services -Budget the costs and elaborate a funding model for the Core Services Financial Business Plan

17. #2 Legal & Governance models Steps for setting up a pan-European infrastructure: achieved Identification of the scientific and technical needs Mapping of the stakeholders and existing national infrastructures Choice of the most appropriate legal structure Tailoring the governance to the scientific and technical needs

18. Choice of a legal structure

19. Selection criteria for a legal structure

20. ERIC legal structure The European Research Infrastructure Consortium results from the COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). Recognition as an International body to some regards (VAT, procurement, …). Another advantage of the ERIC is the flexibility of its management, as the regulation only requires that the statutes provide: - An assembly of members having full decision-making powers including the budget - A director or a board of directors as the executive body and legal representative of the ERIC To set-up an ERIC, there has to be at least three EU Member States

21. ERIC membership Only States (EU Member States, Associate States, Third countries) can be members of an ERIC (i.e. governmental level) Research organizations cannot be members The work of the EPOS RI will be undertaken by research organizations, and may include organizations from non-ERIC-member States Core Services can be organised inside or outside the ERIC according to budgetary and practical considerations

22. External advisory board (external experts in science, finance & management) General Assembly (GA) EPOS ERIC Executive Office General Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant Coordination Committee General Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB Simple EPOS ERIC model with external Core Services Technical Expertise Board High level engineers Scientific Expertise Board Thematic experts National consortia representatives Core Services Data description & QC Data interoperability … National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data Centers Discussion Contract for services Provides data & services recommends coordination

23. EPOS-ERIC: A more practical model

24. Intermediate objective n° DateAction or documentActingObjective 1Sept 2012 (M23) Draft EPOS Design Report (short Science plan, legal and governance scheme, data policy, business plan, socio-economic impacts) WP2,3,4,6Submit EPOS project to governmental representatives, raise awareness and achieve wide recognition 2Nov 2012 (M25) 1 st meeting with governmental representatives (day after IAPC) WP2,4 (convener) Decide on decision-making process for establishing EPOS-ERIC and possibly an Interim Governing Board (gov. representatives) 3Oct 2012- Feb 2013 (M24-30) Application of ERIC hosting country Ministry of that country Decision on the EPOS-ERIC seat 4April 2013 (M30) Draft EPOS-ERIC statutesWP2Feedback from all countries 5April 2013 (M30) Revised EPOS Design Report WP2,3,4,6,7Feedback from all countries Timeline for setting up EPOS-ERIC (1/2)

25. Intermediate objective n° DateAction or documentActingObjective 6April 2013 (M30) Draft MoU or Letter of intent for collaborating in setting up EPOS-ERIC WP2Commitment of the Member States 7Oct 2013 (M36) 2nd meeting with governmental representatives (day after IAPC) Hosting country (convener) Signature of MoU or LoI, hosting country providing all guarantees regarding ERIC and given mandate to negotiate on behalf of the Consortium 8April 2014 (M42) Final ERIC statutes and bylaws, Final business plan for construction and operation phase WP2,3,4,7Approval by countries having signed the MoU or LoI 9April 2014 (M42) Hosting country entering negotiation with EC for ERIC application Hosting country Approval of EPOS-ERIC by EC 10Oct 2014 (M48) Signature of EPOS-ERIC Agreement Member States and EC Creation of EPOS-ERIC Timeline for setting up EPOS ERIC (2/2)

26. Conclusion Governance is not just about designing power and money flow, accountability… Governance is crucial for realizing added scientific value. Structures must be designed according to the scientific needs. This is an iterative process of fine tuning and needs input from scientists as well as legal experts.

27. #2 Legal & Governance models deliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D2.1, D2.2, D3.1 Milestones: MS9 (MS2.1), MS21 (MS5.3) Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives Problems: countries’ response to EPOS depends on the different governmental preparedness, interests, & national competition Solution: we have delayed the appointment and fixed the first meeting at M24 + Draft EPOS Design Report

28. 3. Financial work WP4

29. Costs for construction, operation and decommissioning, indications on project financing The overall EPOS RIs total value (17 RIs are missing for the calculation) reaches a bit more than 290 million euros (290.357.340 €).

30. If we focus on the results per EPOS partner, UiB (Norway) has the biggest total value on average per infrastructure (slightly above 20 million euros per RI) - a number which is largely pulled by NORSAR - whereas IG ASCR has the smallest total value per RI in average: 389 thousand euros.

31. If we look at the total value per country (sum of the total value of all the RIs belonging to an EPOS partner), the ranking is modified. INGV (Italy) thus comes first with a total value of 63.45 million euros, followed by UiB for Norway (60.95 million euros) and CSIC for Spain (45.32 million euros).

32. The overall RIs total value is obviously much higher in seismology (142 millions) as this discipline has declared more RIs than the others. The analytical and experimental laboratories arrive in second position (43 millions). Again, the Geology and surface dynamics RIs account for the smallest amount (1.9 million).

33. Impact on finances Three levels of funding: 1. Head Quarters Costs of the HQs = 250 000 400 000 (including 3 FTEs + annual running cost of the office) Two Options –A) majority contribution by the hosting Member State –B) common funding, proportional to …? 2. Core Services Costs of the Core Services = still to be defined !! Funding model : in cash / in kind contributions 3. National networks and RIs Funding conditions to give a RI the EPOS label (i.e. secured national funding approx. 5 years)? …and other scientific and technical requirements

34. #3 Financial work deliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D4.1 Milestones: MS17 (MS4.1) Bottlenecks: appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives Problems: No roundtable discussion yet with governments & funding agencies Solution: we have delayed the milestone and fixed the first meeting at M24

35. 5. Strategic work WP5 (WP7)

36. WP5: Strategy This complex project with many partners spanning many interests requires a strong strategy! To build the community, we have to: Identify the capabilities of the data provider and needs of the user community; Coordinate and implement each national effort; Evaluate gaps in the solid Earth community landscape and define the optimal path forward, and; Strengthen ties with similar European and Global projects. “WP5 analyzes the landscape and designs a path towards long-term sustainability for the EPOS infrastructure.”

37. WP5: What is achieved? National Efforts: RI identification + Roadmap RIs provided technical, legal + financial description National + regional consortia created National promotion of EPOS on Roadmap Progress summary provided to national initiatives RI -> Working groups Active Working Groups that span the solid Earth monitoring community set up within WP6 Identification of Data Provider and User Community (in cooperation with WP6 and WP8) Identification the existing gaps in the distributed reseach infrastructures contributing to EPOS Crucial for IT framework (WG7) Coordination with similar initiatives (in cooperation with WP8) ENVRI partnership with other ESFRI projects Parallel goals with NERA, REAKT, GEM, etc. Global collaboration with GEO COOPEUS: Bilateral collaboration with US Links with training programs QUEST, TOPOMOD

38. WP5: Coordination of other initiatives (in cooperation with WP8) Formal involvement in GEO(SS) Coordination role for the Supersite Initiative Cooperation with EarthScope (COOPEUS) Regional Federation for Data Infrastructures Joint participation to EC e-science projects: EESI, EUDAT, ENVRI, COOPEUS, Coordination of projects: VERCE, etc. Participation to the Global Data Infrastructure initiative (G8+05, GRDI2020) Successful proposition of EPOS use cases for data infrastructures

39. In preparation for the construction phase: Definition of the socio-economic added value of EPOS Promotion of trans-national access and mobility across the EPOS Research Infrastructures Establishment of pan-European data infrastructures, acting as centres of excellence for the solid Earth community Design of the next generation of Research Infrastructures WP5: What is planned?

40. WP7: EPOS Architecture & implementation plan The Preparatory Phase will bring the project to a level of maturity required to implement the EPOS construction Therefore WP7 will take care of: The integration of main outcomes from the legal work (WP2), governance (WP3) and the financial plan (WP4), “WP7 will aim for a robust implementation plan for the construction of an effective architecture for EPOS.” Following the strategic EPOS roadmap envisioned in WP5 (strategy); According to the technical work done in WP6.

41. Promoting and coordinating (with WP6) the design of the EPOS Data infrastructures and Core Services Involving different stakeholders and capacity building Designing and approving the EPOS architecture Contributing to defining the socio-economic impact of RIs Meeting with the ICT Board WP7: What is planned?

42. #5 STRATEGIC WORK deliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D5.1, D5.2, (D8.1) Milestones: MS19,MS20, MS21, MS37, MS38, MS42 Bottlenecks: – appointment of the Board of Governmental representatives – Strategy to contact core group of users – Risk management plan – Need to update the Science plan Solutions: meeting at M24, use of e-forms & surveys (ICT tools), Risk Management ready for M22 (summer 2012)

43. 4. Technical work WP6

44. Work Package 6: Tasks Task 1 Interoperability of national research infra- structures and requirements analysis GFZ, ORFEUS, CNRS, TUBITAK, NERC(BGS), UU Task 2 Integration of EPOS data providers: access to Data Centres and technical facilities NERC, ORFEUS, CNRS, GFZ, INGV, NOA Task 3IT standardization and e-infrastructure implementation: EPOS Core Services ORFEUS, NERC(BGS), GFZ, CNRS, INGV, IG ASCR Task 4Development and implementation of an EPOS e-infrastructure prototype GFZ, ORFEUS, CNRS, NERC(BGS), IG ASCR

45. WP6 - What has been achieved so far? Establishment of 8 technical Working Groups (WGs) Technical survey: data from 240 European RIs Screening and sorting of the survey results into 8 WGs Initial review and analysis of the survey results EPOS ftp-server for quick access to documents CouchDB for web-based RIDE inventory data base (RIDE – Research Infrastructure Descriptive Database for EPOS) “use cases” for the EPOS database describe user needs (geo-scientist, tourist, emergency response, architect, student, policy maker) STRAWMAN architecture to form a basis for the development of a more complex EPOS architectural model Core Services: discussion paper on EPOS core services

46. EPOS PP WGs WG1 Seismological Observatories and RIs WG2 Volcano Observations WG3 Geological and Surface Dynamics Data WG4 Geodetic Data WG5 Other Geoscience Data WG6 Analytical and Experimental Laboratories WG7 ICT and e-IR Facilities WG8 Satellite Information Data

47. Working Group 1: Seismological Observatories & Research Infrastructures Core group (7), WG members (47) from 24 countries Resources: RI overview, user feedback, project/provider coordination (from ORFEUS & EMSC organisations) Integrating/coordination developments: E-infrastructure planning [NERA, VERCE, SHARE, …] Distributed archives and data access [EIDA, NERA, ORFEUS/EMSC, …] Mobile off-shore and on-shore deployments [AlpArray, …] Science plan (step one: white paper on-/off shore experiments) Workshops/meetings (examples): Series of IT development coordination workshops (~ 2/3 months) Global challenges for seismological data analysis May 25-30, 2012. Erice Observatory coordination meeting Nov 12-14, 2012. Istanbul Sessions and discussions at EGU and ESC meetings

48. Volcano Observations Working Group (WG 2) To optimize the best architecture for the multidisciplinary distributed Research Infrastructure among the observatories; To guarantee the technical interoperability of the distributed Research Infrastructures; To guarantee the adoption of common standards and practices for the implementation phase; To facilitate the access to data centres and to the use of modelling and processing tools. WG2 Objectives: 1. Integrated infrastructure of European Volcano Observatories : to identify the roadmap (steps, initiatives for the promotion, design, etc.) to create the infrastructure. 2. Definition and role of the WG2 stakeholders: to identify the stakeholders in the domain of volcanological data (National Research Organizations, funding agencies, data providers, data users, …); guidelines for stakeholder interactions; possible stakeholder contacts and commitments; etc. 3. Volcanological DB and relationship with WP7: This Task is aimed at contributing to the implementation of the EPOS Core Service. 4. Data Policy: This task is complementary to the previous one and would give the guidelines for the data policy of volcanological products (i.e., data types, data availability, type of access, etc.). WG2 Tasks: European community: ~ 20 observatories; ~ 70 research institutions; 23 RIs surveyed

49. Baseline information OneGeology Europe: bedrock geology -Now – 1:1M, in most countries better (1:250K – 1:25K), and diverse geoscientific maps -EuroGeoSurveys (EGS) plan to move to a complete European coverage with a minimum best resolution at 1:250K for all countries -To create key layers – for EPOS research layers may include active faults, detailed geology of infrastructure projects and observatories -Other layers through EGS focused on EU incentives (soils, groundwater, raw materials etc.) Other baseline data relevant for geoscientific assessments topography (DEM), point databases (e.g. geochemical & age analyses, drill hole locations) Geological metadata (an ideas portal) EU wide geological projects such as TopoEurope Interface georeferenced metadata from archives drill-core storages, sample archives, collections Interface to IGSN (International GeoSample Number) Physical infrastructure database = Collection of information about major geoscientific infrastructure that is of general interest for the EPOS community but not easily integrated in EPOS (e.g. drill rigs) Working group 3 – Geological Data

50. Working Group 4 - GNSS data and other geodetic data Main questions being addressed: Types of data (GNSS or also others; permanent, monument, rate acquisition)? Involvement of commercial partners? Centralized or seamless storage? Data preservation! Metadata handling. Data provider or also solution provider? Development of Tools (e.g., time-series computation)? Cooperation with other European Projects (EUREF, E-GVAP, EUVN, BKG-Real Time, etc.

51. WG5 - Other Geoscience Data: Geo-Magnetic Observatories Infrastructures for Geo-Resources Up to now, 31 RI Questionnaires were submitted. The collection is rather inhomogeneous, which results already from the definition of the WG. Some infrastructures would better fit to another Working Group. The RIs can be sorted out (with some simplifications) into 5 clusters: Geomagnetic observatories Research vessels and marine research Groundwater and CO2 monitoring Databases and GIS Multidisciplinary facilities Concluding remarks: The treatment of multidisciplinary facilities requires communication with other working groups. In some cases the multidisciplinary facilities could be split into more homogeneous parts. The question how the geomagnetic data will be included into (or affiliate with) EPOS is still open. Some infrastructures would better fit to other working groups. The WG5 team needs to be recruited in order to better cover the broad spectrum of infrastructures.

52. WG 6 Analytical and Experimental Laboratories STRUCTURE  Delegates and Laboratories of 14 countries involved in EPOS  The group is coordinated by a chair and three co-chairs, representing the main research activities of the group:  Rock Physics, including Palaeo-magnetism  Analytical and Experimental Petrology and Volcanology  Tectonic Modeling AIM  Turn small scale infrastructures into a coherent, effective, and collaborative structure for scientists

53. WG8 - Satellite Information Data WG8 – Objectives - To ensure the availability of EO data and softwares/tools for data processing and handling -To define clear and shared data formats to facilitate the delivery and data exchange with the other communities -To discuss the data policies of data providers (Space Agencies and Private Companies) - To define the requirements of the user communities - To enforce the link of EO Community and the Earth Science community WG8 – Structure - Delegates from 4 Space Agencies of those present in Europe - Three Geological Surveys - Delegates also members of International initiatives dealing with EO & in situ data (GEO, Geohazard Supersites, GMES, Terrafirma, Pangeo, SubCoast, EVOSS, DORIS, GEM) WG8 – Tasks Task-1 internal to the WG8, it concerns the definition of a comprehensive portfolio of the data repository and the computing facilities available today (led by S. Marsh) Task-2 outside WG8, it should establish a link with the other WGs and the EPOS User Community (led by S. Hosford)

54. EPOS–WP6-WG7 Status & Plan January 2012 to March 2012: SG1: To complete the inventory database of existing RIs; March 2012 to May 2012: SG1 and SG2: To extract detailed requirements; March 2012 to May 2012: SG2 and SG1: To design and implement an extended Inventory database for use as the metadata catalog; May 2012 to July 2012: SG2 and SG3: Design and develop a ‘woodman;’ implementable architecture dependent on metadata; May 2012-September 2012: SG3: Design, develop, implement and demonstrate a prototype for a single domain (seismic) with homogeneous access to >1 heterogeneous sources; SG1, SG2, SG3: Continue to track developments in ICT; Keith G Jeffery keith.jeffery@stfc.ac.ukkeith.jeffery@stfc.ac.uk With acknowledgements to Alberto Michelini, Jean-Pierre Vilotte & Thomas Hoffmann EPOS-WP6-WG7 Plan 2011-12 Data with Detailed Metadata SG = SubGroup of WG7

55. Achievement of this Track of WG7 Data with DETAILED metadata

56. WP6: STEPS IN YEAR 2 Feeding additional survey data into CouchDB Analysis of the survey data by the Working Groups Gap-Analysis (geographic, instrumental, metadata, software) based on current survey data Completion of data set through 2 nd web-based survey Interaction with identified National RIs and data providers for detailed specifications (data policies, data formats, interface specification, meta data description) Core Services: definition of EPOS functionality and services in collaboraton of WGs and the ITC Working Group 7 Derive follow-up “Woodman” architectural model

57. Experts Knowledge Data Products Information Integration Knowledge- Pool National RI EPOS OfferRequest Targetgroups Society Research Politics Public Education Economy Requirements Dialog Core Services Another view of EPOS

58. #4 TECHNICAL WORK deliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D6.1, D6.2, D6.3, D6.4, D6.7 Milestones: MS24, MS25,MS26, MS27, Bottlenecks: – RIDE implementation still not completed – Strategy to contact core group of users – IT Requirements for WG7 are urgently needed Problems: Shared understanding of core services Solutions: Adopt a roadmap for RIDE and finalize the database, use of ICT tools for contacting users.

59. 6. Outreach & Dissemination WP8

60. WP8: Stakeholder interactions & dissemination This complex project needs a good story! Therefore we will define & communicate: The science plan, with science case for EPOS Research Infrastructure; The long-term IT integration plan with broad back-up of stakeholders. A transparent organisational structure; An EPOS infrastructure integration roadmap with priorities; The projects coordinating structure for related but independent initiatives. “WP8 disseminates the EPOS story both within and outside the consortium.”

61. WP8: What is achieved? Web portal & user interfaces Promotional actions / meetings: General promotion (EC, EGI, etc) National promotion Data providers promotion (Lisbon OBS/Mobile, Nordic meeting, etc) Users promotion (EGU, AGU, ESC, etc) Project coordination (NERA, VERCE, ENVRI, EUDAT, COOPEUS) EPOS booth exhibition panel available Appointment of the P&U commission Stakeholder dynamic overview Providers: workshops & meetings (survey WP6) Users: promotional meetings (Science Plan, WGs) Governments & Industry: stakeholder questionnaire

62. WP8: What is achieved? The EPOS Newsletter We have a new editorial procedure We have established an editorial board We are circulating an e-letter Involve other communities

63. WP8: What is planned? Finalization of stakeholder dynamic overview Collection and analysis of results Stakeholder Questionnaire Stakeholder promotion: users & data providers General promotion: EGU2012, ESC2012, ICRI2012, EC meetings, etc. Specific activities such as ORFEUS meetings in Erice and Istanbul Cooperation with and coordination of EPOS related projects and initiatives Other ESFRI projects, national and international initiatives related to EPOS Through dedicated workshops, development and activities overview, etc. DP&U Commission integration in EPOS activities Website & newsletter Implementation of further improvements to better meet user needs

64. #6 Outreach & Dissemination deliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D8.1, D8.2, Milestones: MS37, MS39, MS40, MS42, Bottlenecks: – Strategy to contact core group of users – Engagement of partners in activities – Empower partners for disseminating EPOS Problems: Solutions: Better use of ICT tools, training within EPOS community

65. 1. Management of the preparatory phase WP1

66. Important Meetings  IAPC Meetings Rome November 2010 (kickoff) Utrecht November 2011 (M12) Vienna EGU April 2012 (M18, first reporting deadline) NEXT Paris November 2012  BGR Meetings FIRST Paris November 2012  Advising Boards Meetings AB Teleconferences ICT B Teleconference DP&U C Teleconference  EPOS PP Web-presence Website new updated version Newsletter Collaborative Area

67. Workflow and Resources

73. Science plan Assignment of deliverables to partners Socio-economic impact RI identification

74. #1 Management of the preparatory phase deliverables, bottlenecks & problems Deliverables: D1.1, D1.2, D1.3, D1.4, Milestones: MS1, MS2,MS3, MS4, MS5, MS38 Bottlenecks: – Partners involvement in activities – Lack of human resources – Complex coordination framework with other initiatives Problems: Partners’ involvement & Risk Management plan (delayed) Solutions: Risk Management ready for summer 2012

75. Challenges & Opportunities for EPOS Finalize and open the RIDE database Update/revise information (technical-legal-financial) Update info for new RIs Finalize the Identification Phase Identify legal & governance models & financial schedule Clarifying needs and meaning of Core Servives Define EPOS technical requirements & Science Plan Start the Design Phase The Science Plan Interact with users and meet their needs

76. Conclusions We have to do a lot of backbreaking work

77. External advisory board (external experts in science, finance & management) General Assembly (GA) EPOS ERIC Executive Office General Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant Coordination Committee General Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB Generic EPOS ERIC model with services Technical Expertise Board High level engineers Scientific Expertise Board Thematic experts National consortia representatives EPOS Core Services EPOS activities and services outside the EPOS ERIC National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; and Data Centers Contract for services recommends Provides data & services Recommends and coordinates Discussion recommends implements reports decides

78. External advisory board (external experts in science, finance & management) General Assembly (GA) EPOS ERIC Executive Office General Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant Coordination Committee General Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB EPOS ERIC model 1 EPOS function: defining Core Services Technical Expertise Board High level engineers Scientific Expertise Board Thematic experts National consortia representatives Core Services Data description & QC Data interoperability … National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data Centers Discussion Contract for services Provides data & services recommends coordination

79. External advisory board (external experts in science, finance & management) General Assembly (GA) EPOS ERIC Executive Office General Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant Implementation Committee General Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB EPOS ERIC model 2 EPOS functions: defining and operating the Core Services Technical Expertise Board High level engineers Scientific Expertise Board Thematic experts National consortia representatives National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies; Data Centers Core Services Data description & QC Data interoperability … Discussion Contract for services Provides data & services recommends implements

80. External advisory board (external experts in science, finance & management) General Assembly (GA) EPOS ERIC Executive Office General Director, Technical Director, Adm. Assistant Implementation Committee General Director, Technical Director, Chair and rep from SEB & TEB EPOS ERIC model 3 EPOS functions: defining and operating the Core Services and the Data Centers Technical Expertise Board High level engineers Scientific Expertise Board Thematic experts National consortia representatives National networks & RIs; Organisations and companies Core Services & Data Centers Discussion Contract for services Provides data & services recommends implements

81. Impact on Intellectual property rights Ownership of the different kinds of data: –Raw data owned by national networks –Data processed by core services owned by EPOS ERIC or national networks? –Modelling tools and software owned by…?