Meeting of the SAON Executive Committee (EC)


18 February 2014, 16:00-17:00 (CET)


Teleconference – Skype


David Hik (DH, IASC, vice-Chair, only part-time), David Scott (DS, Canada), Eva Kruemmel (EK, ICC), Helen Joseph (HJ, Canada), Jan René Larsen (JRL, AMAP), Lars-Otto Reiersen (LOR, AMAP, only part-time), Tom Armstrong (TA, AMAP, Chair), Volker Rachold (VR, IASC)






1 SAON Strategy and Committee ToR documents

2 SAON Board Meeting. Teleconference on 6MAR 17-19 CET / 11-13 EST

3 SAON Board Meeting on 10-11APR in Helsinki. Agenda proposal:
     1      SAON Strategy
     2      SAON Committees
     3      Reporting from SAON National Committees
     4      Reporting from Tasks
     5      SAON Review
     6      The AC Scientific Cooperation Task Force
     7      The International Polar Initiative

4 ‘A more active Engagement role for SAON’ – email from David from 16JAN14

5 Arctic Observing Summit (AOS)

6 Other business:
     AMAP HoD meeting in Rovaniemi, 3-5FEB


Ad 1) SAON Strategy and Committee ToR documents

New draft versions of the documents had been circulated on 8FEB. The EC found that the documents were now ready to be circulated to the Board for comments and revision.

Ad 2) Board Meeting. Teleconference on 6MAR 17-19 CET / 11-13 EST

It was agreed to call for a teleconference Board meeting where the two documents will be discussed. The purpose of the meeting should be to approve the documents and to establish the two Committees. In the invitation to the meeting, the participants would be asked to provide their comments to the documents in advance of the meeting and to consider the names of the persons that should have seats in the Committees. If Board members cannot participate, they should provide approval of the documents in advance of the meeting, and they also provide Committee member names.

Ad 3) Board Meeting on 10-11APR in Helsinki

The EC reviewed the proposed agenda, and agreed on the overall contents with these comments:

  • On ‘Reporting from SAON National Committees’: The National Committees will be asked to provide their view on the value added of SAON. They should inform the Board how SAON can/already is adding value to national work and vice-versa. It will still have to be clarified how much time the meeting should spend on this item.
  • On ‘Reporting from Tasks’: The reporting should focus on the Tasks that are a success stories. In the reporting, the Tasks should focus on how they align with the SAON Strategy. They should provide written reports prior to the Board meeting, and in the future, a standardized format for this reporting should be developed. Future reporting should be through the Committees. It will still have to be clarified how much time the meeting should spend on this item.
  • On ‘SAON Review’: The EC had the opinion that it is too premature and not worthwhile to do a review of SAON already now. The point will be stay on the agenda, but will only be for discussion, not for actual planning.

Ad 4) ‘A more active Engagement role for SAON’

DS had written a proposal on this. It was decided that it should be the first agenda item at the next EC meeting.

Ad 5) Arctic Observing Summit (AOS)

EK is one of the co-chairs of the Organizing Committee, and JRL and VR have seats in the Committee. The plans for AOS are well developed, and the number of registered participants is now 289, and app. 350 is expected.

Ad 6) Other business

TA explained that he had presented the draft Strategy document at the AMAP HoDs meeting in Rovaniemi, 3-5FEB 2014. The document was well received and the meeting expressed continued support for SAON. The meeting reiterated that SAON must be built on existing structures and initiatives, including national implementation plans and inventories. TA also explained that the meeting had discussed the ‘The AC Scientific Cooperation Task Force’ and emphasized that SAON should establish itself as an important partner in the work of the Task Force. It was noted that TA will attend the coming meeting of the TF and will represent AMAP as well as SAON at the meeting.

JRL had sent out a questionnaire to the SAON Board members and Task Leads after the first AOS. The questionnaire asked for information on the organization of metadata. JRL had drafted a report on the responses which had been provided by four countries, two international organizations, two Tasks and two AC Working Groups. It was agreed to ask the CDIS Committee to further consider this report.

Designed & hosted by Arctic Portal