 So sorry again for this delay. I'll try to give an overview on some of the aspects that we have discussed in forward in the working group sustainability. Yes governance and the structure together with the colleagues in the executive board and of course with the other with the colleagues in the government's board as well and the commission. So just to lose not too much time I would like to I mean everybody is aware about the momentum that we have in the ESC with the president of the commission launching and mentioning ESC very prominently in the economic forum in Davos and most recently also in relation to the COVID data platform activities. The ESC working group has since mid-last year we had our first live meeting in July very actively working been working on various aspects around analyzing and providing strategic, legal and financial recommendations for the ESC post 2020. So focusing on business models on the potential legal entities, the governance framework and analyzing also regulatory and policy barriers that could be an issue for launching ESC. So I'm leading you through a couple of stuff that we have that we have been able to bring forward. We have several we had several rounds of a document regarding analyzing the the financial environment and the sustainability environment of the future ESC with a series of documents starting from a storm and document that we have pushed through a consultation together with the various ESC projects, the governance board, the executive board, the working groups have asked for feedback, consolidated that feedback that was back in 2019 in September when it was first made available. We have iterated and included this feedback into a next level document we called the Tinman document. Again push that through a consultation process and this together with additional inputs that we will bring on board from a number of studies and their evaluation. We will integrate this feedback further down the line in a document we would call and propose to call the Iron Lady. With the appropriate recommendations you will be able to see and to access all this documentation from the strongman Tinman and the feedback that we received on the link that you can see on the slide below. With this document we provide, we propose the recommendations for sustainability and in particular business models legal entity options governance and national policy issues. As I said we are proposing that ESC will be put together following an iterative approach and the gradual growth starting from a minimum viable ESC and will enable a federation of existing and planned research data infrastructures plus additional services for initially for the public funded research sector and then further would allow iterations to include additional services such as the public sector and the industry. A key goal of the ESC beyond 2020 is of course to shift the goal of ESC from research to research enterprise in Europe towards an open research model as the primary stakeholders of ESC we are seeing clearly the researchers as the end users the service providers as well as research funders member states and associated countries and the European Commission and of course there will be there are more. As I as I highlighted we are proposing that this grows across the series of iterations and I see this is being taken up also by the other working group and also by the partnership proposal that we will have a chance to discuss further in a couple of minutes from various angles by adding more subsequently more functionality and services to widening the user base as I mentioned before. So we are proposing to start from an MVE the minimum viable ESC and that includes three main fields basically the ESC core which I will highlight on the next slide the federated data that so the ESC core will enable to federate the fair data sets and then an additional set of services we call ESC exchange that will include the higher level and thematic services to work with these federated and fair data sets. So the MVE will allow the federation of existing and planned data infrastructures. It will connect disciplinary infrastructures and research data to allow and to enable cross disciplinary research and it will hopefully provide mechanisms to federate disciplinary clusters and regional projects as a first critical step and to begin with we will most likely see simple use cases starting from openly accessible fair data. In terms of the core functions that are proposed it really means it will on the logical side it will include and provide the means to discover share access and reuse data and services but it will not store or transfer it will not store the it will not provide the services to store transfer or to process data. It should be used as wide as widely as possible and will only be accessible to authenticated users to promote open research across Europe. I'm not sure to which extent this has been mentioned during the morning but the proposed coverage will include a number of horizontal services so a basic same layer that will allow the federation of data including for example AI PID services and help desk functions and a couple of more as outlined here on the slides but I don't want to go further into detail here. There are proposed second or third level iterations that will allow extension of these services to provide to serve the public sector and the industry hopefully and that could probably build on initial use cases for example from the education or our substitution sector. Ideally all of those would fit into one in one common marketplace but we appreciate and realize that very likely differing requirements and legislation might require alternatively govern spaces. I think it is clear and everybody will appreciate that this will not happen over time and that will very careful assembly of the different building blocks to be put together and will of course happen during a number of years but initially as we said we would like to start we would like to propose to start from the MVE and then subsequently grow to the wider areas as mentioned. In terms of the iron lady the document that we push through these various iterations the timeline will look like that we are currently working and we have a task force working on that Bob Jones is with us and probably can share more if there's questions. We are currently working on integrating feedback that we received from the tenement document and the consultation. The second draft will be put together towards June where we will integrate also additional content from the AIS partnership proposal and further content from the governance and legal entity discussions and inputs that are currently going on and the third draft will build on studies in the area of the EOS core operational cost that is ongoing and maybe afterwards Lydia can share a little bit more on this as well. In addition to this there will be input from the ongoing assembly of the SRIA the strategic research and innovation agenda and and roadmap documents and of course the input from the very from the value of working work of the rules of participation working group. There's additional studies going on on risk management which will feed the final draft that will be put together towards September this year and also bring on board a high level further analysis on preparedness from that is building on the landscaping analysis from the landscaping working group and also here we have the task force that is working on this and in terms of official publication we are looking at October bringing on board additional feedback by the executive board and the government's board we hope. So in terms of the studies that I mentioned that I mentioned before we can probably briefly say there is additional legal advice being this is brought on board under this on the ongoing discussions and work of the legal entity task force which I will highlight a little bit more in a minute and we have we are in working with CMS a law firm that is contracted by the secretary at and working now with the legal entity task force within the working group. We are working on a costing exercise to determine the operational costs of the AOS core together with a company with two companies called across limits and boundary less that were selected via an open call and again Lydia might share a couple of thoughts afterwards. We are providing we are carrying out a risk assessment. We are a company called AON HAVIT that has been selected via co-creation activities. Additional studies are currently proposed and in the queue. One will focus on AS on AS exchange basically the marketplace for public and commercial service providers and to will study and determine the business models for participation access risk and opportunities and within AS exchange and towards broadening the AS and the engagement of wider of other sectors including the public and private sectors in AS there will be an additional study and one could be one additional study has also been proposed to look at long-term data preservation roles and responsibilities. These the focus for for these studies has also been supported by the feedback that we received from within the Tinman feedback so that's basically the main driver of these studies. I think it has been discussed earlier that AS is looking towards establishing a co-programmed partnership together with the European Commission and it has been become clear I mean this that's that's the slide that is already a couple of months old already so that together with the governance board the governance board has endorsed to work towards a co-partner partnership on the horizon Europe together with the Commission and seeing this as an effective business case for the Member States to support AS and also to to decide the nature of the relationship with the Commission to have to to allow this co-broker partnership to become alive. It requires a legal entity to be established this is an essential requirement for the funding to flow through the partnership in horizon Europe and it also became clear that the legal entity would need to become operational before the end of 2020 so that the partnership agreements together with the Commission can be signed and governed from January next year onwards. It has been proposed and was recommended that the format for the legal vehicle would be an AISPL which is an international association without lucrative purpose and in the next couple of slides I'm going to let you know a little bit where the current discussions stand and and what is the progress I'm trying to put this together into setting this up. Here we see a graph a graphic representation of the timelines of some of the timelines that are involved of setting up this legal entity that is a result from the calendar report and other studies that was involved in our work that has influenced our work of course. If we keep in mind that towards the end so that this in December the legal entity needs to be operational it is clear that we are going through and have to go through a very very tight skeleton of timelines and milestones to really make possible that we have for instance a first general assembly in September that we have appropriate statutes by-laws and investigations on VAT statutes, translation of statutes so that the the founding members in the end can go to the notary and establish this association. So the red circle highlights where we are staying right and where we are right now in this process we are currently working on the drafting and putting together the statutes and have the various discussions with the government's board, the executive board and a number of candidate founding members that have been proposed by the government's board and the executive board to help with this in terms of how this co-programmed partnership would look like and would and could look like if we look if we see on the on the slide on the left hand side the European Commission is one partner of this contractual arrangement which is a number of understanding and on the underside we see the ASC association that will be actually this ASPL that is going to be put into into place. Those are the the initial partner of the so-called initially B-partite arrangement as it has been proposed as this partnership. We are seeing, we are also seeing a strategic role of the so-called strategy board that will represent the member states and associated countries which not only will have an advisory role as indicated by the by the blue line to the ASC association but also within the so-called three-pipetite arrangement will send representatives to a partnership board. Actually the partnership board is the the forum that consists the boot is initially consists of the European Commission representatives of the European Commission and the executive board and in the three-pipetite arrangement as currently proposed and very likely to happen there will be additional representatives by the strategy board to set the policy and strategic framework for this partnership. It should also be highlighted as within the the partnership there is on the one hand side the commission providing the funding through the through the work program and on the other side there is there there will be seen contributions by the member states associated countries and or other stakeholders in terms of data and services and most of those of course will happen in kind as it proposed now. If we look at the if we look at the the various aspects of of what actually the the legal entity will consist of we see a general assembly and the executive board and executive board director and we'll come to this in a minute we see that here on the left hand side as well. If we if we focus on if we focus on one of the main tasks of this of the AIS association besides the office functions helpdesk and other functions in terms of settings and working with the community on setting the standards the main one of the main the major activities of this AIS association will to shape and to help co-create the draft work program and then put on or more precisely the the strategic research and innovation agenda together with the European Commission which then will be pushed through the through the commutology through the commutology process of the European Commission and then will result in a work program and will then most will then be able to fund projects that carry out certain functions and will enable to provide a number of services within the different areas that that we have proposed earlier being that those involved in the AIS core so the horizontal layer of the same services or in the exchange area the the somatic services and high-level services working on the fair data so we see there is an indirect pretty indirect role of the of the AIS association initially the AIS association will not be able to I mean will not have a large budget and to to provide services on its own so the most most of the services we see being provided through the the various projects that that are funded a sort of a program there might be however doing a growing while the the association grows the also the association budget will go and then there might be further chance for the opportunities to fund to fund or to provide services through the through the organization as I highlighted before the timelines are quite tight we are working on the draft statutes here and in terms of understanding the statutes it is can you still hear me yes we can still hear you okay I just received a note that maybe there were there were issues please let me know if there's anything okay so in terms of putting together the the statutes I think this has been and and that's the discussion that is currently ongoing we should probably briefly mention the the rationale for for the for the approach the time the type time scales have been mentioned it has to be understood also that the ASPL provides an opportunity to have a quite lean framework of statutes and to cover the detail in the bylaws it needs to be understood that within this construct changing the statutes which much is much more difficult than changing the bylaws which is which is something that that can more easily happen from within decision-making in the general assembly in terms of the partnership the association should cater for both the tree partite or a bilateral arrangement as I tried to highlight early on and we are making efforts to accommodate both both of these eventualities in terms of maturity we have to assume that of course starting from the use full association that of course builds on decades of experience and in the infrastructures data infrastructures and services but still will be able will grow and and we need to build in this this flexibility in the organization in terms of membership also we need to make sure that it is an open process as open as possible and that it allows us to allow us to go as fast as possible and and as wide as possible and also in terms of categorization we should foresee mechanisms so that we balance the influence of individual in individual organizations or individual categories of organizations so that there is a balance useful useful and appropriate balance across the organization being able to represent all of the the individual stakeholders in terms of influence we understand that there needs to be appropriate appropriateness in the voting regime of course but also have the ability to allow the member states who are very very important stakeholders of the airsk in terms of their contribution so that we allow so-called mandated organizations to play an important role indeed this strategic decision making of this of this association so we are as I said before we are working on the statutes that will cover the minimum information required for the legal setup of the association and as the statutes are difficult to amend and the final details will be will be put into the bylaws and can be amended by the general assembly of of of the association without any legal intervention the governance board have highlighted membership as and and voting as their key areas of concern so we are providing clarity so that this area is it is it's gaining their their approval and we are actively working with them the minimum of founding members we have been advised by by professional legal advice is set up to three and at the current moment a large number of founding members is discouraged due to the practical practicalities and timers which does not prevent I mean this this is of course not this this does not of course mean that there is a barrier for members to join the association very very early so we have to we have to see if the the process of founding members going to the notary happens in this during this summer there will be time towards the first general assembly and also the the mechanisms that are put in place with the statutes will allow to for members to join at the very early stage and very rapidly so that we can now the the association to grow it is however very very important that we bring together at least these three members and it looks like it will be more right now so that the association actually turns into life and and can as I said before can can sign the the memorandum of understanding the association an organization should be able to grow as as flexible and and fast as possible and it is clear that the founding members will not have any greater or different rights than than any other members and as I said earlier on it will have there will be a chance for for others to join very very early and that's that's a basic principle in terms of governance there will be a general assembly with a vice with a president and a vice president the supreme it will represent the supreme authority of the association one representative for for every member and it will be responsive for high level decisions the executive board the executive board will have a the executive board will be represented by a chair and a vice chair and we are looking probably like for five to nine members to be voted in by the general assembly and then as a delegated authority for running the day-to-day business and an executive director supported by a vice secretary the steering board as proposed in the three-partite arrangement will and should remain outside of the association to enable it to be composed of ministries and their representatives in terms of the different members and observers we see that the members would could come from your member states associated countries and candidate countries there will pay a variable fee and can vote and there will be also observers without any geographical limits who will pay a small and flat fee and cannot vote there is the proposal to have certain categories to allow balancing the influence in the in the association and it will be composed of research funding organizations research performing and service providing organization as an end as a catch all other organizations there will be an opportunity also for each country to have one or more members in the association and the countries will be able to appoint one as one single member to act as its mandated organization with responsibility to represent their national interest and also have specific voting rates on strategic on strategic aspects I will skip the other slide I will briefly I should briefly highlight there will be fees so it will be it will be mostly it will be necessary to understand that there is an association budget that needs that needs to be financed by the members the working assumption is that the association would require at its outset budget of approximately two million euros per year and the fees will be determined by the association and the detail will be recorded by within the the bilas so the association is fine as well the fees of its members but also might receive income from other areas such as subsidies grants donations and because potentially in terms of the next steps we have we are discussing the the statutes with the governor's board the executive board and candidate funding members have made have invited the input during the time from 5th to 18th May on the 17th June we are looking at sign off of the statutes in peril many other many other activities are going on and are supported by legal professional advice so review of the of the statutes take into account of the governor's board preparation of the bylaws translation of final version of the statutes into french the interaction with the notary additional formalities and also investigations of vat and tax tax aspects so that was a bit rushing through these elements i'm sorry again for for the delay in the in the start and i'm not quite sure how we how is how we are with the time and what could be well is here is 15 minutes to one so we are a little bit short on time and i i have invited everybody to submit questions or comments through the chat window okay okay thank you rupert for this very comprehensive round of activities led by the sustainability working group i would like to thank everybody in the working group for their excellent commitment and nice work so far now there is a question here from rine belso says eos without resources you say business model and marketplace considerations are pending are there at this point in time absolutely no thought on this are there any vague scenarios at least i'm not quite i'm not quite sure i completely understand the the question could could it says i okay i'll read it completely since eos requires resources data as well as infrastructures to be free at the point of use who will finance the open free europe wide resource pool and how so so maybe maybe i can say a few words out of the business model the studies exactly yeah yeah okay rene look um as as rupert said very briefly when he mentioned the list of studies uh that the working group is running there are two studies that refer to business models the first one is already ongoing and is a study to identify the operational costs of the what we call the minimum viable eos that is the core set of services that will researchers should have access to they include as you may have seen in the tinman report they include protocols for fair data include access to data person a persistent identifiers etc so there is these two consultancies they partner to try and structure what are the main costs associated to these services and they are doing so by contacting existing infrastructures that provide these type of services and based on that they will do an estimation of what these costs will be the second study which is going to start very soon is indeed on um first of all on what are the financial lines that could be used to fund these services i.e interoperability of data and access to data but also beyond what is the minimum viable product so the minimum core of services is about enlarging the variety of services that eos will do so we don't have an estimation yet but the studies will provide the estimation during the course of the year normally the study one about the identification of the operational costs of the minimal viable eos will be ready in july so summertime and the second study probably will be ready by october november normally in time for the eos stakeholders forum in october maybe thank you lidia that's that's that's excellent i think what we what we what we probably should also highlight i mean not sure i completely understand the question correctly but i think we should not assume eos starts with with nothing or from from zero so the idea is to bring together the different services in terms of data and and services to gather and federate those into eos of course it is clear that that this requires additional work and and many of those of you in in the audience have been working on these different aspects for for many years so i think it is it's not so we should not assume that there's nothing to start but eos has an important role and the eos legal entity has an important role to help shape and to help coordinate how these different pieces are put together so i think that's that's one of the that's one of the major aspects of this of this work in the legal entity of the association sorry then is another there is another question here by valker backman from cnrs the scope programmed eos diagram where is the feedback possibility for the users where is the stakeholders forum that's a good question and we have to we have to appreciate this this diagram is is just presenting a very fragmented and and a very rough sketch the eos association has as one of the the main activities the work on the on this ria it has standardization i think one of the other activities is is working on standardization on on making sure that there was a participation are are are are brought on board and and and considered and and to be put in place and enforced the dialogue with the dialogue with the with the stakeholder forum will be an important part of the communication and dissemination activity of this association so there is there is a strong role to put to put this input on board otherwise i mean without the community the association will never be able to to successfully set the standards and then to to to to engage with with the wider air so the association is of course not the whole of the earth so it's it's one part one important part of the earth that will be able to grow that will hopefully be able to bring on board more and more and more partners and stakeholders involved but the input clearly comes from the from from the wider community such as the stakeholder forum and that's an important role of the association to make that happen and okay that answers the question i also i'm trying to see if it is possible to allow rene to put the question himself and in the meantime i receive the answer to that whether that is possible because i'm not in command of of the giving word to people let's move to the next question i have in line which is from lennard stoi at eua at european university association how do you cope with the the uncertainty for potential members regarding the status of their country's association to eu programs has this been discussed this is being this is being discussed and we are we are we are trying i mean there is discussions with with the with the governor's board how we can be as as flexible as possible um i cannot um i cannot confirm that these discussions have been have converged yet um but certainly this is on the radar so that we that we make that we make this as open as possible um there is another question from jen claude bergelman hello jen claude he says uh who will be responsible when when it doesn't work well i hope if it doesn't work and what will be the real life key performance indicators for example volumes of data being reused i think one of the i mean i i think that's that's that's a that's a very that's very important to two questions um i will probably start this with the second one so what is it what is it that that we will need to bring on board in terms of measuring the success i think the stuff working document has has already proposed some some key performance indicators and i think there there will be a complex set of of those need to need to be implemented i think we will need to look at at aspects such as which which data are brought on board um how broad is is a representation of of the different domains um how much is this data being reused um how uh how much how much from the publication um are benefiting from uh from from working in uh from from the data in the years and services available to us and many many more um i think on one of the slides that i had and that is the work in entertainment uh report some of this that there will be an important role of matrix of a matrix framework represented through the air's core so that will be an important element to already from the beginning start monitoring the success and of course i mean this will depend also on the work within the the different communities and maybe the the the the work from within the the cluster projects and the the regional cluster projects um can help to shape these these metrics and and and try to find find synergies on that area who will be responsible i think i think it's a it's a clear responsibility for all of us and i'm not quite sure there will be one that there will be one organization that that can be blamed in the end since this is an important joint effort this very this is a very broad variety of stakeholders i think it can only it commonly only be the many of us that make it happen it is too big for for just one to to be blamed us but i think we need to be acting very actively together to make it happen i think i should add uh rupert that in last week when we were discussing the partnership proposal uh in the partnership proposal which will make public i don't know sometime in uh when is the time comes by there will be a large quite a large number of key performance indicators at several level it will be a mixture of uh more countable indicators such as volume of data used or deposited or accessible sorry not deposited accessible um but also there will be a number of qualitative indicators it will be a combination of quantitative and qualitative and this is all under uh discussion and negotiation with the with the commission regarding responsibilities clearly there will be this uh partnership and they will be responsible for managing the partnership efficiently in in collaboration with the uh member states and uh the responsibilities that will be attributed to the legal entity plus the stakeholder so as rupert said it will be a shared responsibility uh if eosk would whether eosk is a success or not everybody will have their part of responsibilities i have been told that we can go a little bit over time because we started late so i will try to address all questions that are coming up now the next one is by uh uh shonda witt she says that there is a trade-off between agility of an organization and size by inviting board members i'm sorry more members decision making takes longer and flexibility is reduced how can this be squared so i think what i mean that's that's a typical problem of large organizations i mean what you what you try to do is is try to find a construct where you can delegate uh operational and day-to-day activities to to to the executive board um so that that you have this this one aspect separated and of course it is it is uh it is more complex um with this large organization but at the same time we need to also see it is still a process to get there we should not i mean of course we are enthusiastic to bring together this this association and to let it grow and let it blossom if we just what is what's the alternative should we limit this i don't i don't see that i mean what will what could also happen and it is quite it is quite unsure how it will happen if you could imagine that not every organization will will join individually you could you could see depending on how things go um that there is umbrella organizations joining instead of certain individual organizations i mean that could be the case for certain types of universities where you have a representing uh umbrella organization that that could join i'm not quite sure um i think we need to be prepared for for for a number of things to happen um and we just try to build the framework that that it can happen so that uh we are that we see a broad representation as broad as possible i think this has always been mentioned uh that this is one of the main aims uh that it is that it can grow that it can bring on board the the vast um uh experience that that is existing across the european landscape um and we have to face these challenges and then with a flexible arrangement of the association make sure that um the the association is wise enough to implement the appropriate measures so that it can deal with with the growing with organic growing of of its of its bodies but thank you rupert i will move to move to a question raised by mark van de sanden um oh wait a minute before i move to mark can i ask the colleagues the colleagues in trust it to give the word to rene so he can ask his questions is this possible yes it's possible uh yes i'm doing now rene can you tell us whether you okay yes please right it's concerning this uh resources across border so i can't see that happening uh more than on a very small scale unless there is a viable financial model for this somebody has to pay for the scaling of resources across border and where does that come from did that go through yes thank you yes it's fine rupert do you want to give a response to that okay can you be a little bit more precise than okay so let's say you have a storage infrastructure or another attractive infrastructure and somebody from a different country wants to use it which i believe is the whole idea of yours then the scaling of that infrastructure will entail costs so how does a provider get cost recovery when providing to let's say foreigners or outsiders so most national infrastructure providers are financed to serve their population of researchers and institutions but if the first problem is if a service is popular and immensely popular from the rest of europe who's going to pay for this and the second thing is the competitiveness i think that's that's out competes on other national infrastructure is that okay or is there a protectionism here honestly we don't know yet um there is there's studies ongoing to to support this um i think there might be i mean there might be different there might be different barriers as you say there might be policy barriers there might be uh legal barriers that that's not even all of the the infrastructures can participate in in providing services to to outside to use us outside of the country so these so these barriers first need to be addressed or are seen and and potentially be removed so that that these things can can happen is it okay that that a certain that a certain service can be out computed by other out competed by others in theory i think there should be there should be i think that there should be competition there should be active competition whether or not it is whether or not this this will lead to a situation where a massively attractive service out competes the others that there is something that still needs to be found and what are the consequences i would hesitate to to comment to comment on this but i think i would certainly like to see a competitive framework where users really have a possibility to see different components available to to to serve their needs i think that is i think that could be that could be a momentum that that is bring that is good thing to the to the to the play how the the financing how the financing could could work that is subject to to further studies and it's not completely understood there is there has been there has been thoughts about virtual access virtual access mechanisms to to fund the the additional the additional service a fraction and to which extent this this is appropriate and needs to further needs to be shaped further we will we will see okay good thank you report and now i'll go to the question by mark van der sanden what would be your proposed relationship and collaboration between the eos legal entity and infra eos zero three which is currently in preparation how we explore that i i i think i think in in terms of i mean in frayers three is is is is uh is uh is is certainly a work and and is certainly an activity that can help shape can can help with shaping the different sectors of of eos and it would be important to understand how this how this could be done how certain standardization activities service provision activities can happen in the end i think what we what we need to make sure is that the association while it is initially only will be mainly focus on on shaping the the swia will also have a mandate to to see how the different activities activities really propagate and and how this the strategic impact of what's being discussed within the within the association and within the within the partnership really can make it we can can can provide an influence on the shaping of of the so i think there is an important there is an important role of of of joint activities how services could be provisioned both in the air score and the air exchange area on on more thematic services how can these these things be be finance be structured how can they be aligned how can services be activities be be be standardized how can fair data practices be implemented the rules rules of participation being shaped so there is a there's a there's a strong role to to allow color collaboration across these things i think in the end also what needs to be made sure is that the air association and that needs to be studied whether this is legally possible but i think in terms of these projects that the future work program of the commission will fund i think it would be used very useful if there is different if there's hooks in the in the grant agreements in terms of or in terms of memorandum of understanding so that that the ear's association has some sort of a grip into these projects and and to to see whether they deliver appropriately in terms of what the association tries to bring forward in shaping the agenda okay proper for the sake of time maybe i will i will rush a little bit on the questions maybe we can provide very short questions for those who are still present and there is a several people who saying that we are running overtime and that whether we could write them short written answers but maybe just to to give an opportunity for those who can stay longer to hear about these responses i will go through what are very different questions because some of them are kind of similar but there is one question by shonda with saying that fair data is not black and white so saying that it will only serve fair data is somewhat vague at the best at best yeah i guess i would just i would just say we we need we need some pragmatism and and i think show is very well aware of this we will we will we will try to we will all need to try to make a pragmatic approach to bring together and to build from what we have and and then iteratively make it make it make it and shape it shape it further there is no i mean if we just try to be uh to wait until we reach perfectionism in each single domains until they can provide their data i'm not quite sure i mean that's that's just my personal opinion i'm not quite sure this this will result in in in a very strong momentum of uptake so some some pragmatism is necessary yes thank you i i think it's more of a comment than a question by fotis caraghani saying that the um there should be a personalized dashboard for end users with the smart features including ai-based training and learning and that there was something already proposed in um erg back in 2015 so we could perhaps should look into that as a as a as a background resource there will be i'm sorry there there will be there will be there will be user help desk um and similar components um included in hopefully in in the in the in the in this horizontal airscore component i think that that should be useful um there is an activity uh with the um with the airsc training skills working group looking at at those aspects i think that's of course very important yeah yes good thank you then a suggestion from sesda who says that they would be in favor of a larger group of founding members just to ensure representation and to ensure a good executive board uh representing a larger number of stakeholders i think i think that's an important question and we should we should really um we should really make sure so we are currently discussing with candidate founding members and and those is needs to be this thing needs needs to be distinguished from the founding members um we have not first of all the the working group more than working group nor the task force have selected those so the suggestions came from the governance board and and the executive board um so and and and i think it needs to be it needs to be clear that those um will maybe not all of them will be the ones that that go to the actually go to the notary and that will be the the founding members um this is this is this is something that that still needs to happen and currently we don't have a clear view of actually who will be the actual founding members that is that is still some work to be done thank you Rupert from Judy de la Mar a recommendation to keep EOS as open as possible regarding innovation i.e. uh keeping an open mind on new options and standards uh in the market to adapt as quickly as possible um then i move quickly down just to make sure i try cover most of the questions martin says that regarding the power of member states to designate an institution as a mandate or organization how it is ensured that this organization coordinates with other member organizations from that very same member state that's uh that this is for sure and and a very very important question for for the member states to to to solve absolutely um i i would not i would not i would not come up with with any recommendations but i think there is an opportunity with the mandatory organizations to shape the the agenda across across a member state and and to to further synergize the the processes towards open science we appreciate and we completely understand that in particular with some of the member states it might be that this this might be a challenging process absolutely well good um a question from Vanessa Proutman about the tension between the goal of open research and funding the facilitator the facilitation of discovery access reuse of the material that is open and free so will those who pay more have a greater voice in governance and what structures are in place to design good governance representing the community so i think very so i think yeah i mean there will be there will be there will be more influence um from via the the mandated organizations as as i said as i said as i highlighted but there will be also very broad representations so for for a large variety of of um of voting issues across the whole the whole general assembly so i think there is a quite balanced framework and i think it would be a little bit too detailed if we go if we go really into the specifics um but as i see the statutes framework right now i think there's a quite balanced approach on how um the breadth of the stakeholders will be heard and at the same time the member states have a say on on on preserving their agendas and and to see how they can align with with their own activities on a national level quickly moving down to questions a question by Per Oster that i can answer myself yes governments cannot be in the legal entity the legal entity is composed of other legal entities that are not for profit or even for profit but they have to be an independent legal entity member states have the um the the partnership uh to be a part of it there will be the steering board we're composed of member states that's the place for member states that's why there is this mandated organizations in the legal entity but no member states as such in the legal entity uh even marik is um what is your view on the current mix of international pan-european infrastructures and the research infrastructure legal entities and their members coming from member states so this is if they can be candidate founding members well basically that goes into the same direction any legal entity can be potential founding member or join afterwards i just a clarification uh organizations that are not founding members and organizations that are founding members are meant to have the same rights and duties there will be no difference in that that that you must be very clear the point of my question is not there the point of my question is the logic of mixing membership organization with the members in the new membership organization so if my organization is in membership of one research infrastructure eric or infrastructure on pan-european level and then we end up in the same new legal entity new government don't you find this is a there is some conflict of interest perhaps or mixing my point is that this is at least not clear to me yet why we mix membership institutions that are part of pan-european reeds and infrastructure institution legal entities and then we end up in the same category in the eos legal entities if we don't separate those i am fully supportive of categorization institutions coming from member states be it mandated or not mandated at the same time are also members of pan-european research and research infrastructure and infrastructure organization so basically to avoid double membership presentation etc i think we should be clear personally i can live with the eosk being a sum of all data producer research infrastructure and the infrastructure organization in europe have a separate category or or body inside the whole structure of governance of eosk and on the other side having enlarged membership for all individual researchers or institutions etc etc and the third category could be member state mandated organization but mixing them as a founding member at this point i don't see a message so so even i'm not quite sure i mean the concept of a founding member is not a specific category i mean that's that's that's that's for sure so a founding member can come from any of these categories that have been proposed and the categories that we have proposed have been discussed with both the governance board extensively doing various meetings and also with the executive board and probably also others um so i think i think we need to i mean we need to find a way to to to find a compromise if this is not appropriate for all of all of the stakeholders this this this we appreciate and at the same time we need to also understand if we categorize the categorization is is a is a way to preserve influence within the within the grow within the growing and to balance influence with the growing organization so the organization can be can can grow potentially by by a certain category just overwhelming the whole organization and by introducing this categorization model we think we we we find a way how the organization itself has a has a a mechanism to balance this and and to and to and to just just introduce some some balance across across the different fields i'm not quite sure we can we can completely optimize everything for for everyone okay thank you i think that i will just drive this session to a nice close with its its 120 almost maybe just one addressing just one last question saying who will perform the second study on business models that we don't know yet there will be a uh a scouting for uh possible organizations who could do it and it will be all allocated one very last question uh virtual access uh does not solve the issue of cost recovery it's a simple way of accounting costs in the end somewhere needs to pay for scarce resources provided by service providers is there a concrete time frame to discuss and address this and that should be the last question i think is important aspects will happen of this of these questions will happen when we carry out this the studies on on the exchange i would say okay very good so uh let's draw this question this question and answer session to an end we have gone clearly over time 20 minutes but i think uh the quality of your questions that reflect the the need to have to address this over time we have collected a few additional ideas that we will take now into account in our development of the sustainability report and the business models and the legal entity development and i think we can close it here rupert do you want to say something else no i think that was a perfect closure thank you lydia and sorry again for the technical issues for for joining this thank you everybody for all your interest thank you everybody bye have a nice lunch i think uh we now uh we resume at 2 30 no i think yes yes very good we will meet at 2 30 and please connect a little bit 10 minutes early just for avoid in case of technical issue thank you bye have a nice lunch have a good lunch thank you lydia rupert thank you thank you bye