ࡱ> TVS` (bjbj .H ```` ll&|. 7&9&9&9&9&9&9&$4(h*F]&]&r&zzzj7&j7&zz3#ho$ ZxK`#$&0&#*F* o$*o$$ Zg@X4   ]&]&N   &`` Summary of discussions, informal JCOMMOPS roundtable 9 May 2006, Silver Spring USA Contents: participants, background, discussion, funding, next steps and time-line, annexes Participants: Mike Johnson (roundtable chair and JCOMM Observations coordinator), David Meldrum (DBCP chair), Graeme Ball (SOT chair), Howard Freeland and Dean Roemmich (Argo co-chairs), Mark Merrifield (GLOSS chair), Maria Hood (IOCCP coordinator), Uwe Send (OceanSITES co-chair), Ed Harrison (OOPC chair), Shubha Sathyendranath (POGO executive director), Eric Lindstrom (via telephone - JCOMM satellite expert), JCOMM secretariat. Background: Representatives of the various observing programmes (those already involved in JCOMMOPS plus those that may benefit from future involvement) summarized their programme's requirements and future needs for an operational support centre. The former JCOMMOPS Coordinator also summarized the present status of JCOMMOPS including relevant background information. The meeting explored advantages and disadvantages of having a consolidated JCOMMOPS, and informal proposals from potential hosts (following a survey by JCOMM co-president Peter Dexter) were reviewed. A brainstorming session followed to examine whether or not an operational centre is important for an ocean observing system, and if so what are the requirements for an integrated observational system and how an operational support centre can best meet those needs on an international basis in the future. Discussion (general agreement unless noted): 1. There is value in an operational centre, although some disagreement on the definition of "operational". A support centre for the implementation of the observing programme will be essential to enable the sustained deployment of an ocean observing system over the next 5-10 years, and JCOMMOPS holds a seed for this evolution. 2. JCOMMOPS should be further developed to extend its responsibilities for other observing programmes beyond DBCP, SOT and Argo, including e.g., OceanSITES, IOCCP, GLOSS, and the POGO research cruise database. 3. The level of services provided by JCOMMOPS should be proportional to the level of commitments made by each programme/panel, with JCOMMOPs perhaps acting as a "black box" with two or more Technical Coordinators (TCs) providing services to multiple programmes/panels. For example, a TC could work half-time for Argo and half-time for one or more other panels (e.g., SOT, OceanSITES), provided adequate funding was provided by each. 4. Each programme representative presented its requirements for an implementation support centre, and estimated future needs for a fully sustained observing system support at JCOMMOPS. It is essential that these requirements be refined and documented as part of the next steps in this process. Summary points include: Argo: TC (less than full-time) should be co-located with Argo PO Director (full-time). TC meets deployment notification requirements as specified in IOC-Resolution XX.6. OceanSITES: Cooperation and integration with JCOMMOPS could be cost-effective (e.g., TC could assist with tracking status of individual sites; pressuring operators to provide data and information; getting data from ARGO and onto GTS; acting as clearing house for technical information about sensors, handling, calibration, QC procedures; collecting information about planned cruises with mooring work). IOCCP: IOCCP neither has nor aims to have a separate operational system; rather the goal is to get observations integrated into existing platforms and there may be a future role for JCOMMOPS in this. The current arrangement at IOC for IOCCP coordination has both advantages (e.g., Member States concerns over data exchange, direct links to UN conventions and observing system development, direct links to National, Regional and World Data Center systems, and UN system visibility for big issues) and disadvantages (e.g., lack of necessary technical capabilities, financial inflexibility to implement activities, and precarious funding schemes for staff support. ). POGO cruise DB: A cost evaluation by JCOMMOPS has been provided subsequent to roundtable. However, there are other proposals beings evaluated and no decision has been made by POGO. NB: POGO estimated that half-time TC would be necessary (see table below), but that because this function would be primarily collecting information from POGO member institutes, that the TC could be recruited at a lower level than that required for DBCP or Argo. GLOSS: currently no need for a TC-type function within JCOMMOPS. There are some benefits in international technical coordination but precise needs have not been evaluated and much of the work is already being done at the University of Hawaii and by the Technical Secretary (IOC Thorkild Aarup). DBCP and SOT: JCOMMOPS support should be maintained at current level (see table). 5. For future (5-10 years) needs (summarized in table below), three working levels were introduced: 1 for high level programme managerial functions (e.g., Argo PO Director) 2 for mid-level type of coordination (e.g., current DBCP/SOT or Argo TC) 3 for information system operations (e.g., current CLS contribution to JCOMMOPS) For the purpose of this exercise, JCOMMOPS would include at least levels 2 and 3; level 1 support needs to be further clarified and the participants did not yet elaborate whether e.g., Project Office functions should be included within JCOMMOPS or not. However, JCOMMOPS should include a managerial function (probably one person) if its functions expand to other programmes/panels. The following table summarizes estimates (again, this will need to be refined and documented) in required full-time employees. levelDBCPArgoSOTGLOSSIOCCPOceanSITESCruise DBtotal1 (PO director/chair)110.252.252 (user support)0.70.70.50.10.50.50.53.53 (routine ops/IT)0.20.30.20.10.20.20.21.3total0.92.00.70.11.70.950.77.05 6. A process should be started to thoroughly evaluate and enumerate the requirements for (i) a JCOMMOPS that can respond to the evolving needs for a sustained ocean observing programme, as well as (ii) the best host organization to meet these requirements. It would be preferable to co-locate within an operational centre but not within a service provider, although there was not unanimity on the last point. Both requirements documents should be as specific as possible, e.g., a requirement for the host to provide for level 3 support as well as provide either an Oracle database or funding for the transition to another database. 7. Concerns were expressed that moving JCOMMOPS has associated costs, both financial and in diverting the TC's attention from their normal day-to-day coordination work. It is essential to allow for a sufficient transition period, probably two years from the decision point, to ensure adequate continuity. Another concern regards the four-year UNESCO contract limit (terminating 06/2010) under which the current TC for DBCP and SOT is employed. Funding: There is general recognition that for the short-term, DBCP has a slight surplus as a result of a five-month gap in TC employment as well as a lower pay-scale for the new TC. It is possible that this cost-savings could be used to support a TC for another programme or be applied towards an eventual re-location and associated transition costs. However, only the DBCP can make decisions regarding the use of this surplus. No new funding was identified for the medium- or long-term. The suggestion is for consolidated TC and IT support, with resource sharing across the programmes. A dedicated trust fund for JCOMMOPS is highly desirable, and a proposal for same should be included in the next steps. Next steps and time-line: The issue will be discussed at the October 2006 JCOMM Management and DBCP meetings, after which two requirements documents will be prepared for discussion and action at the April 2007 Observations Coordination Group meeting: Requirements for a JCOMMOPS that can respond to the evolving needs for a sustained ocean observing programme; needs to include detailed explanation of advantages of a consolidated JCOMMOPS. Requirements for JCOMMOPS host; needs to include both direct and in-kind support. SUd o abchiv####&&(hh_h<B*OJQJph h<haJmH sH hB*aJmH phsH h<OJQJh<aJmHsH h5\hh5CJ\5STUd e QR'(bcdefgh & F$a$(hij EF>$If & Fh^h & F$If kd$$Ifl  xIo!06$$$$4 la$If  kd$$Ifl  xIo!06$$$$4 la  !%)$If )* kd$$Ifl  xIo!06$$$$4 la*=AEIMQUY]$If ]^ kd$$Ifl  xIo!06$$$$4 la^dhlptx}$If  kd$$Ifl  xIo!06$$$$4 la""####x%y%&&&&''S((( & F,1h. A!"#$% $$If!v h555K555555K5 #v5#vK#v#v#v#v#v#vK#v :V l0655 4$$If!v h555K555555K5 #v5#vK#v#v#v#v#v#vK#v :V l0655 4$$If!v h555K555555K5 #v5#vK#v#v#v#v#v#vK#v :V l0655 4$$If!v h555K555555K5 #v5#vK#v#v#v#v#v#vK#v :V l0655 4$$If!v h555K555555K5 #v5#vK#v#v#v#v#v#vK#v :V l0655 4@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List H5STUdeQR'(   b c d e f g h i j  EF>  !%)*=AEIMQUY]^dhlptx}xyS 0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0 0 0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0 0y0y0 0 0 0000 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 00(h)*]^( !"#(8@0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK4 OLE_LINK3 B omCo  [olo |\o , Do4mCOO RR Z*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/Z*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNamehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/_*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ (  JM 3FJ  =A   | 8 ] };CL2,$xv5z7> ~@Nh   ^ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h | | ^| `OJQJo(h LL^L`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(8 $x };C> ~5z                                             _  !%)*=AEIMQUY]^dhlptx} @ |  @UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialI& ??Arial Unicode MS?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qhpcf@CB ;;!24d 2QHP(?_2c_clarkc_clark      Oh+'0  0 < H T`hpxc_clark Normal.dotc_clark19Microsoft Office Word@K@eK@@ h@`xK՜.+,0 hp  UNESCO;   Title  !"#$&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABDEFGHIJLMNOPQRURoot Entry FpㄽxKWData %1Table-+WordDocument.HSummaryInformation(CDocumentSummaryInformation8KCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q