DiSSCo Prepare Deliverable D7.1 - A detailed plan for governance structure and function, and participation framework

DiSSCo related output This template collects the required metadata to reference the official Deliverables and Milestones of DiSSCo-related projects. More information on the mandatory and conditionally mandatory fields can be found in the supporting document 'Metadata for DiSSCo Knowledge base' that is shared among work package leads, and in Teamwork > Files. A short explanatory text is given for all metadata fields, thus allowing easy entry of the required information. If there are any questions, please contact us at [email protected]. Title D7.1 A detailed plan for governance structure and function & participation framework. Author(s) Eva Alonso Vizcaino Dimitris Koureas Identifier of the author(s) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5336-9723 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4842-6487 Affiliation Naturalis Biodiversity Center Contributors CETAF Aisbl, RBINS, MNHN, NHM, Meise BG Publisher DiSSCo Prepare Identifier of the publisher Resource ID Publication year 2022 Related identifiers Is it the first time you submit this outcome? Yes Creation date 14/03/2022 Version 1 Citation DiSSCo governance model Abstract The aim of this document is to present the main results of the work done within DiSSCo Prepare to define governance models scenarios for the future legal entity of the DiSSCo RI and the results from the consultation processes carried out with DiSSCo National Nodes and the Funders Forum advisory body. Content keywords organisational Project reference DiSSCo Prepare (GA-871043) WP number WP7 Project output Deliverable Deliverable/milestone number D7.1 Dissemination level Public Rights License CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Resource type Text Format pdf Funding Programme H2020-INFRADEV-2019-2 Contact email [email protected] DiSSCo PREPARE WP7 Governance, policy & legal framework D7.1 A detailed plan for governance structure and function, & participation framework Editors Eva Alonso, Dimitris Koureas, Ohad Graber-Soudry Contributors Ana Casino, Wouter Addink, Jose Alonso, Helen Hardy, Lisa French, Michel Guiraud, Salomé Landel, Katharine Worley, Kari Lahti, Aino Juslén, Carole Paleco, Serge Scory, Patricia Mergen. Version 20220325 v.1 Table of Content Introduction 2 Definitions 4 Methodology used for the preparation of Ms7.4 4 DiSSCo Research Infrastructure 8 Mission and Vision 8 DiSSCo as a distributed RI 9 DiSSCo's community 9 The Scientific and technical dimensions 11 The Legal Framework 15 Principles of Governance & Assumptions 16 Principles 16 Assumptions 17 DiSSCo Stakeholders 18 Institutional relations 19 User Community 22 Other Stakeholders 23 28 29 Governance structure and functions Analysis of the governance alternatives and functions AnnexesComparative analysis of governance models in other EU RIs Consultation processes results 43 1 Introduction The aim of this document is to present the main results of the work done within DiSSCo Prepare to define governance models scenarios for the future legal entity of the DiSSCo RI and the results from the consultation processes carried out with DiSSCo National Nodes and the Funders Forum advisory body. The models proposed here are based on previous discussions to update the DiSSCo EU MoU and those governance principles that were deemed essential by the WP7 team to 1 ensure efficiency, consistency and sustainability, during the operational phase of DiSSCo. Principles were discussed during the preparation of the Legal Entity models (T7.2) and further defined during T7.1 meetings . 2 Paired with the internal analysis of what DiSSCo may need in terms of organisational structure, this report offers a thorough analysis of the existing governance models across European research infrastructures, from which DiSSCo may extract best practices and guiding principles. The analysis of national contribution alternatives was also part of the discussions, as a collaborative effort between WP7 and WP4 (The Business Framework). The work responded to the belief that a better understanding of the funding models would be one of the key elements for the preparation of this document . 3 However, bearing in mind the financial models requires a separate and well-conducted discussion, the team decided not to include them as part of this report. The work led by Naturalis counts on the support of MNHN, CETAF, NHM, Luomus, and RBINS and takes into consideration, as mentioned above, the experience of consolidated ERICs (BBMRI, EPOS, DARIAH, ELI, CLARIN) and other international and EU initiatives (GBIF, ELIXIR, CETAF), as well as the advice of a legal advisor, X-Officio (in particular Dr. Ohad Graber-Soudry, former Head of Legal at the European Spallation Source-ERIC). 3WP4 Milestone 4.5 will be subject for a separate consultation early 2022. 2Folder to the T7.1 MoM: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8iP9rcOte8NcHAQcSCIedenXf9jKjWM/view?usp=sharing 1DiSSCo European MoU. https://drive.google.com/file/d/13xox2V5euuglySfLX1dcs9gqzIENZDdE/view?usp=sharing 2 The alternative models have been developed on the assumption that DiSSCo will adopt the ERIC legal framework, following the decision taken by the 3rd DiSSCo interim General Assembly ((hereby referred to as iGA)4 on 10-11 June 2021. The legal basis supporting the work consists of the Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium5 (hereby referred to as “the ERIC Regulation”), and the Practical Guidelines6 for applicants issued by the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission, as well as publications produced by the ERIC Forum and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Structure The report is structured in four main sections: - Chapter 1 to 6: Overview of DiSSCo as a distributed research infrastructure: aims to identify the framework given by the DiSSCo specificities as a Research Infrastructure and the boundaries established by the ERIC regulation. Both of them, elements the governance's organisation has to respect; - Chapter 7: Analysis of the key actors engaged in DiSSCo-ERIC governance: to highlight the main stakeholders with functions and responsibilities in governing DiSSCo-ERIC and to open the discussion on different roles and ways of internal organisation; - Chapter 8: Analysis of governance models for DiSSCo-ERIC; -Annexes: With the results from the interviews with other ERICs and the consultation processes. 6ERIC Guidelines: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zoyXpnIeiP4gt6_4c3uj9Xv3_JvELuRQ/view?usp=sharing 5http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:206:0001:0008:EN:PDF 4IGA3 decision AI8: The iGA accepts the outcome of the report of the committee and supports the ERIC as the currently accepted model for the further development of the governance structure and related body of legal documents. However, the iGA can reconsider this decision if it becomes evident, through the development of the governance model, that the ERIC framework cannot accommodate the critical governance requirements of the DiSSCo community. 3 Definitions -‘Research Infrastructure’ means facilities, resources and related services that are 7 used by the scientific community to conduct top-level research in their respective fields and covers major scientific equipment or sets of instruments; knowledge-based resources such as collections, archives or structures for scientific information; enabling Information and Communications Technology-based infrastructures such as grid, computing, software and communication, or any other entity of a unique nature essential to achieve excellence in research; -‘Third country’ means a State that is not a Member State of the European Union; -‘Associated country’ means a third country which is a party to an international agreement with the European Union, under the terms or on the basis of which it makes a financial contribution to all or part of the Community research, technological development and demonstration programmes; -'DiSSCo Stakeholders' are users and organisations which either have an interest, directly or indirectly, in DiSSCo or have some influence on DiSSCo and its services; - 'DiSSCo User' means anyone who uses and /or benefits from DiSSCo services; -'DiSSCo Centre of Excellence' (DCE)- a concept that is still under discussion within 8 DPP - means an institution, national node, service provider node, regional node or transnational group of institutions, with proven excellence in a given domain, providing a specific service at European level to DiSSCo RI users; - 'DiSSCo National Node' is one or more national facilities operating in the same country. In the charts, DiSSCo NN is represented as an operational unit. Methodology used for the preparation of Ms7.4 This chapter aims to describe the methodology followed by the team, identify the key elements of that learning process and provide supporting documentation to explain the rationale behind any information presented in this document. 8To be further addressed as part of the Specialisation plan 7Art.2 ERIC regulation. 4 Task 7.1 contributes to the Organisational Implementation Readiness Level (IRL) of DiSSCo by producing reference material for a ready–to–implement an organisational model for the governance of the future DiSSCo-ERIC. The work builds upon existing outcomes and current discussions in different DPP work packages concerning the definition of the legal entity framework and common policies (WP7), financial contributions models (WP4), DiSSCo key stakeholders (WP8, DiSSCo aspirations working group) and operation of DiSSCo Funders Forum (WP9), and in future, Stakeholders Forum (WP8/WP9). In order to assess and recommend the most suitable internal structure and functions for DiSSCo ERIC, the following methodology was followed: In 2020, T7.1 held three meetings to set up the methodology and first activities as described 9 in the Grant Agreement. Concerning the organisational structure, Naturalis (task leader) shared a first draft of the scope and methodology (DiSSCo Prepare Task 7.1: Planning & Scoping document v.2) . 10 Based on that document, the team agreed upon the following (December 21, 2020): - A task force constituted by Naturalis, RBINS, MNHN would initiate the preparatory work to be the basis for further discussions at the WP7 level and other partners from WP4 (T4.3) and WP8 (T8.1 & T8.3). The criteria for the selection was the amount of time devoted to the task. CETAF expressed interest to join and participate in the discussions from the beginning; -To keep all partners updated on progress, a folder in Google drive was shared with access to all the information. On top of that, the team opened a notebook in Teamwork, to collect the minutes of the meetings and supporting documentation; -The methodology remain flexible and adapt to the needs rising during the process to enable proper endorsement of the work by the community, provision of high-level recommendations from the FF and SAB and well-informed discussions at the iGA. To allow that, the T7.1 reorganised their timeline to better align the work with the calendar of meetings of the FF and iGA; - For the preparation of each of the outcomes in T7.1, it was agreed to organise a continuous consultation process with DiSSCo National Nodes. This consultation process was conducted by CETAF as the leading institution of WP8 in DPP; 10 DiSSCo Prepare Task 7.1: Planning & Scoping document v.2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FGsZPx_Jqbh375u6R6Bg6-nAosMH0X3W/view?usp=sharing 9T7.1 MoM: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8iP9rcOte8NcHAQcSCIedenXf9jKjWM/view?usp=sharing 5 - Outcomes were also subject to recommendations from the Scientific Advisory Body (hereby referred as to SAB); -Discussions on each outcome together with results from the consultation processes were part of the agenda of the Funders Forum (hereby referred as to FF) 3rd meeting (February, 2022); - Key contributions and decisions were taken during the 4th meeting of the iGA (March, 24-25, 2022). The iGA approved model 3 as the most suitable model for DiSSCo-ERIC. During the DPP AHM1 (session on January 18, 2021), the team agreed upon a number of 11 core elements to include in the governance structure. Secondly, the discussion aimed to set up criteria to select and analyse existing governance models in other RIs that would facilitate the definition of DiSSCo governance structure. On February 4, 2021, the team was extended to include all the WP7 members, including Beneficiaries that do not participate in the task, e.g. Meise Botanic Garden and started a collaboration with T4.3, national contribution models. Naturalis also hired the services of a legal counselor, X-Officio, to support the work. The criteria for its selection was based on its previous collaboration with T7.2 in the preparation of the analysis of the legal entity models for the future RI and the sound curriculum of the company in advising RIs, mostly ERICs. On March 4, the team agreed to work on a comparative analysis of existing models. A series of interviews were conducted with well-established ERICs to learn from their experience. Individual interviews were organised with directors or other senior executives representing BBMRI, EPOS, ELI, DARIAH and CLARIN. The list of Q&A can be found here: (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fj6S4m0A1DApuaI4XZF9yXuGbhArRRVN8777H_l_NU8/e dit?usp=sharing). 11 AHM1 Report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJSVZLGND17lkRK9zQF8f4lsH5qV5ZBT/view?usp=sharing 6 What is the issue How DiSSCo responds Taxonomic expertise across our local collections is declining A community curation model is needed that will be able to pull expert resources across locations, transforming institutionally restricted information curation to a higher-value shared community curation model Digitisation investments are scattered and not coordinated A pan-European digitisation programme is needed to ensure optimum scientifically-driven digitisation across our European assets Trust in mobilised digital records is declining because of quality concerns Re-unification of all data classes derived from the study of collection objects and provide unified access to the digital twins of physical specimens along with extended provenance information Physical and virtual access is disconnected An orchestrated multi-modal access programme for European collections Collections’ development is fragmented, and investment decisions are taken based only at institutional or national gaps Services that allow a birds-eye-view on the taxonomic and geographic gaps in biodiversity and geodiversity surveying and corresponding European wide policies that allow for a pan-European orchestrated collections development programme Data deriving from the study of vouchered specimens is disconnected A new concept of the digital specimen is at the core of the data architecture of DiSSCo. The digital specimen is an informationally enhanced and extended digital twin of a physical specimen. A digital specimen acts as a human-readable and machine-actionable knowledge unit that integrates all data deriving from the study of the physical object. The use of collections in scientific outputs is poorly monitored Deployment of a unified persistent identification system for digital specimens would further facilitate tracking the usage the track of individual specimens across scientific outputs. 13 Table 1. Issues related to current limitations that impact scientific quality, capacity and efficiency and the expected contribution of DiSSCo services. DiSSCo Technical premise DiSSCo will be predominantly operating as a data-driven infrastructure and will provide e-services to enhance both virtual and physical access to the collections. The data being served will be supplied directly by the institutions. For this, the governance structure needs to take into account the large variety in technical capabilities and different timelines for digital transformation in the institutions. Centralised coordination and negotiation are needed with e.g. collection management software providers to make data provision more efficient. e-Services can be provided both by a DiSSCo central hub and by service providers. Centres of Excellence also play a role in the data infrastructure, in particular in data mobilisation. A governance structure is therefore needed that can govern both the suppliers of data (the institutions providing access to their collection holdings) as well as the service providers. From a technical point of view, one of the key factors of the success of DiSSCo as a RI will be the establishment of reliable, sustainable and trustworthy e-services. This can be established through both permanent common services and tailor-made services to current and emerging user needs. The services will be provided by nodes through establishing formal agreements (e.g SLAs) and will require monitoring performance of the technical infrastructure. A governance structure will support the services provision with bodies that can advise on user needs and strategic development as well as central coordination that monitors performance and quality of services. Another important factor is the embedding of the DiSSCo data infrastructure in the landscape of national, European and global service providers for biodiversity and geodiversity data. This requires coordination and collaboration with service providers and infrastructures at both national and international levels. 14 The Legal Framework During the first year of the preparatory phase, DiSSCo iGA decided to explore the European Research Infrastructure Consortium (hereafter ERIC) as the potential legal entity model for DiSSCo RI. Despite the number of options available, the research done under T7.2 in DPP, highlighted the ERIC as a legal model that may respond better to RI needs. In fact, the ERIC was introduced by the EU Council to enable the establishment and operation of a research infrastructure on a non-economic basis by creating an appropriate legal framework that 17 should facilitate their establishment and operation at the level of the European Union involving Member States and other countries. The ERIC regulation contains a number of provisions that will be part of the discussions to be taken during the upcoming two years. Those include the following: - Membership of an ERIC must comprise at least three Member States and may include qualified associated countries and third countries other than associated countries as well as specialised intergovernmental organisations; - The Statutes will determine the governing structure and in which manner those bodies legally represent the ERIC, together with sound budgetary principles for the exercise of its financial responsibility. This means that the ERIC is liable for its debts. In order to allow the members to find appropriate solutions regarding their liability, the option should be given to provide in the Statutes for different liability regimes going above the liability limited to the contributions of the members; - In order to carry out its tasks in the most efficient way, an ERIC should have a statutory seat, in order to determine the applicable law, within the territory of a member of that ERIC which is a Member State or an associated country. This decision, taken at an early stage of the process for submission, should facilitate 17 In order to promote innovation and knowledge and technology transfer, the ERIC should be allowed to carry out some limited economic activities if they are closely related to its principal task and they do not jeopardise its achievement (Preamble ERIC regulation). 15 enormously the definition of a certain number of provisions, for instance, concerning employment or procurement policies; - The entities applying for the setting-up of an ERIC (the potential hosting country and at least two other countries) will follow a two-steps application process during which a number of documents are to be agreed upon: (a) a request to the Commission to set up the ERIC, (b) the proposed Statutes of the ERIC, (c) a technical and scientific description of the research infrastructure to be established and operated by the ERIC, (d) a declaration by the host Member State recognising the ERIC as an international body in the sense of the Directive 2006/112/EC and as an international organisation in the sense of the Directive 92/12/EEC, as of its setting up. DiSSCo CSO is currently refining a very preliminary roadmap towards the submission of Step 1 of the application process. The draft will be presented in early 2022 to DiSSCo partners. . Principles of Governance & Assumptions18 Principles The governance model shall: - be instrumental for the successful operation of DiSSCo distributed research infrastructure and align with its vision, mission, values and objectives; - ensure that the leadership of the organisation makes well-informed decisions and takes appropriate actions to deliver services in an effective and accountable manner; - guarantee the transparent and equitable stewardship of resources; - establish mechanisms to guarantee accountability of the governing bodies; 18 Based on DiSSCo European Memorandum of Understanding; DiSSCo conceptual blueprint (ICEDIG project:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHLrREqjaOJpbwgv-VhV4J3_jlzx7o9K/view?usp=sharing); G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance 2015:A Critical Assessment of their Operation and Impact. Mathias M Siems and Oscar Alvarez-Macotela* April 2017 Final version published in Journal of Business Law 2017, 310-328 16 - set up a flexible governing structure able to support the most suitable contribution model at the time; - enable meaningful participation in the decision-making process of main partners, also including institutions and CETAF; - assure agile decision processes; - assure alignment across the organisational structure; - ensure a long-term and effective stakeholder participation; - Incentive continuous development of the international and transdisciplinary dimension of DiSSCo RI; - establish efficient and fluent communication channels with stakeholders to improve services and service provision; - facilitate alignment with both European and national priorities, during the decision-making processes. Assumptions - The ERIC is the legal model for the further development of the governance structure and related body of legal documents; - DiSSCo will follow a central shared coordination approach. The RI operates centralised services together with the nodes (national and service providers nodes). The central hub retains the authority on operational and policy aspects while other aspects in the provision of services (incl. added-value) are specified by contractual agreements; - Central Hub takes responsibility for the coordination, administration, and communication functions. It supports the executive bodies; - DiSSCo positions itself as part of an international endeavour to provide new services, participate in joint programs, and complement other research initiatives; - DiSSCo’s contribution model assumes that data must be "free at the point of use"; - DiSSCo RI's community of strong institutions, some of them with more than centuries of history, makes DiSSCo a specific case in the European Research Area (ERA). This specificity leads to the establishment of mechanisms to allow well-informed discussions and decisions that need to be endorsed by the community to secure its effective endorsement and further implementation. 17 DiSSCo Stakeholders The team has differentiated two separate categories, internal and external stakeholders, based on their distinct roles. Internal Stakeholders ( DiSSCo National Nodes & CETAF) are the main partners of DiSSCo and represent the community behind any action carried out towards the readiness of the RI for construction and operation. This category includes facilities operating in the national nodes and the European Consortium of Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF). Due to the importance of the internal partners, the governance models proposed here identify ways to allow them to participate in the decision-making processes, directly or indirectly. That means potential participation in the General Assembly (acting as representing entity), the executive (the Board of Directors, in Model 2) and/or the advisory level (the Nodes Committee). The internal partners constitute the basis for the DiSSCo Nodes and the DiSSCo Nodes Committee. External Stakeholders (Other Stakeholders) include a vast number of potential partners to cooperate with to facilitate the creation, implementation and update of a wide array of services across organisations and research domains. Furthermore, it includes those who use and benefit from services, i.e. other DiSSCo end-users. This category includes Research Infrastructures, user communities from other domains, international biodiversity-related initiatives, policy-advisory bodies and industry. DiSSCo stakeholders will be represented in the organisational structure through the Stakeholders Forum advisory body (hereby referred to as SF). It will be constituted by representatives from DiSSCo partners in the creation and provision of services and will represent the user communities’ needs outside the DiSSCo partnership (internal stakeholders). Furthermore, the SF will provide feedback on the scientific strategy and other components of the work plan. 18 Institutional relations Luomus and CETAF, as partners participating in T7.1, have run a workshop to specifically tackle the participation of institutions and the community represented by CETAF in the governing bodies of DiSSCo. Due to the different elements integrated in the same workshop, it was split into two sessions, one taking place on November 22 and the second, on December 10, 2021. In the first session, examples of similar initiatives were presented, namely from ELIXIR (Susanna Repo, Head of Operations at ELIXIR) and GBIF (Tim Hirsch, Deputy Director of GBIF), to demonstrate how the articulation of nodes in distributed Research Infrastructure intends to give due response to the RI needs, the functions and responsibilities of the diversity of actors involved in the operation of the infrastructure and the delivery of its portfolio of services. Partners to 7.1 participated in discussions that have ended with shared definitions that drive the participation of institutions and CETAF (the organization representing the community of institutions) in a research infrastructure. The institutions participating in DiSSCo are the facilities that host, preserve and curate NSC. They conduct research on top of the collections and extract data and produce knowledge. A facility typically acts as a provider of services to DiSSCo, including e.g. providing natural 19 science data to the research infrastructure, and/or a user of the services provided by the RI. What has been largely discussed and agreed upon, is that in order to provide services to DiSSCo, a facility needs to be a legally established entity. The owners of the NSCs stand also as pillars for the implementation of the DiSSCo work programme. To operate in a consistent, coherent and also inclusive manner at a national level, institutions are to be gathered around the national node. A DiSSCo National Node (NN) is one or more national facilities operating in the same country. The National Nodes are part of the DiSSCo research infrastructure and not necessarily of the DiSSCo ERIC. With this definition, collection-holding institutions are included but equally other entities that may not host NSC but are directly linked to provision of either bioand geodiversity data and/or services built on top of that data, e.g. ecological institutes of biodiversity centres with direct linkage to the museum, botanic garden, or university that host the NSC. It will be upon the facilities operating in the same country to collaborate, coordinate themselves, and finally agree on shared operational bases in regard to DiSSCo. The 19 DiSSCo facility, an institution, member of a DiSSCo National Node, providing services. 19 inclusion of non-collections holding institutions in the national node may be dictated by national strategies coming e.g. from funding agencies or research roadmaps. The NN should preferably have a defined structure with a collaborative agreement among the node members. However, the way the nodes organise themselves is an independent decision taken by the node members and can span from a very well fixed structure to a loose basic conceptual agreement. Despite the format of its own internal governing format, a National Node has to: - designate a Representing Organisation of the National Node (RONN);\ - delegate the RONN to represent the NN and to participate as a member of Nodes Committee (NC); and - give consent to the RONN to act fully on behalf of the NN as regards to the DiSSCo governance decision-making processes. From the above, the RONN stands as a pivotal component of the governance model of DiSSCo. The Representing Organisation of the National Node is the legal entity that has authority to form legal agreements with DiSSCo-ERIC on behalf of the National Node facilities. Moreover, the RONN represents the NN in the Nodes Committee (NC). The typical functions of NN may include: - coordinate a community of facilities at national level; - channel information and actions within the National Node; - promote and support the mobilisation of natural collections data; - provide support to the development of DiSSCo services; - facilitate participation and access of the facilities to DiSSCo services; - encourage the participation of new facilities into the node; - participate through RONN in the governance of DiSSCo RI as a member of Nodes Committee (NC); and - provide services to DiSSCo. The direct participation of CETAF in the Nodes Committee is secured by identifying the organisation as a service provider that constitutes a Node in itself. Thus, Service Provider Nodes (SPN) and RONNS are equal members at the NC. The SPN, like CETAF, will become 20 a direct member of the NC through a formal agreement with DiSSCo ERIC, in similar conditions as it would be for a national node.. A facility or a National Node may provide services at the national level or directly at the international level on behalf of DiSSCo. To regulate the operations concerning DiSSCo services through formal agreements, the facility should be a legal entity or act through the appointed RONN. A facility, a National Node or a Service Provider Node (as it will be defined below), may be able to become a DiSSCo Centre of Excellence (DCE) specialised in one or more services or other tasks and disseminating information on the same. The establishment of regional/thematic Service Provider Nodes is also envisioned to have content or geographical specialised scope. The privilege to establish a National Node is not only limited to the DiSSCo ERIC member (Partner) countries. On the contrary, non-partner countries are also invited to do it. To finalise the sequence of involvement in DiSSCo of both institutions (through the national node represented by the RONN) and CETAF (as service provider node), it is important to underline that both form part of the Nodes Committee on equal terms. The Nodes Committee (NC) is a body formed by the RONNs and Service Provider Nodes (SPN). It will act as an advisory body to the executive bodies of the DiSSCo RI. 21 Fig. 1 Representation of the Institutional and CETAF participation in the Nodes Committee User Community Users are anyone who uses and /or benefits from DiSSCo services. Examples include curators, researchers, collection managers, citizen scientists, educators, policy-makers and industrial users. They can be internal (institutions contributing directly to operations and CETAF) or external to DiSSCo. Direct users are most likely to be relevant to DiSSCo governance, however, there may also be indirect users who benefit e.g. from the access, data or outcomes provided via DiSSCo services - these are unlikely to be directly represented in DiSSCo governance but may be relevant for instance to future surveys of DiSSCo impact. User should be recognised as a role, which is not necessarily the only relationship of a certain organisation or individual to DiSSCo. For example, industrial (external to DiSSCo) stakeholders may sometimes be users and sometimes suppliers (e.g. with technical solutions); and curators may both contribute to DiSSCo as providers of data and be users of DiSSCo data or services. Governance for DiSSCo will need to provide appropriate 22 Assembly can have several categories of membership, including International Organisations, with differing rights and responsibilities. - A Director-General (as in model 1 below) or a Board of Directors (as in model 2 below) is the executive level, in charge of implementing the decisions of the General Assembly and is responsible for the execution of the work programme. The Director-General (or the Board of Directors) should have the authority to make certain independent decisions within limits set by the General Assembly and to promote the interests of DiSSCo ERIC without seeking advance approval from the General Assembly. - A central hub is part of the executive management of the research infrastructure, managed by the Director-General (as in model 1 below) or by the CEO (as in model 2 below) with the support of a secretariat, in charge of operating the research infrastructure. In some cases (as in Model 3 below) there is an executive board (or executive committee) which forms part of the executive management of the research infrastructure, in support of the Director-General. The central hub works closely with and under the supervision of the Director-General (or CEO) to fulfill scientific and administrative responsibilities. The staff at the central hub can provide services such as training, communication, accounting, administrative and evaluation of requests for access to the infrastructure, management of scientific calls and projects. - Advisory committees: All of the existing ERICs have at least one or two advisory boards (and usually the possibility in the Statutes of establishing additional advisory boards), that deliver information and advice to the General Assembly and to the Director-General. These advisory boards can be scientific, administrative, or financial and are composed of persons external to the ERIC. In the case of distributed ERICs, a Nodes Committee (or similar) is established as well in order to provide a fora to the heads of the various nodes involved in the research infrastructure. Analysis of the governance alternatives and functions The analysis conducted suggests that there are two main forms of governance models which are suitable for DiSSCo-ERIC. Each of them takes into consideration DiSSCo specificities, in particular, emphasis is placed on providing sufficient possibilities for participating institutions as well as CETAF to have an influential role in the decision making process of DiSSCo ERIC. During the series of workshops conducted, each model was analysed in detail and a 29 description of responsibilities and functions for each component in the internal structure was developed, including reporting lines and roles definition. Important to note, that during the discussions and workshops with the WP7 partners, a hybrid, third model, has emerged and it will be presented below as well. It was suggested by the legal counselor that this third (hybrid) model is the governance model that may accommodate better DiSSCo ERIC specifics. Each of the models is presented below. DiSSCo Governance Model 1 Model 1 is characterised by a two-layer internal structure: the General Assembly and a Director-General. Institutions' involvement is done mainly through their participation in the Nodes Committee (in addition to the possibility to be appointed as a representing entity in the GA by the relevant member). Model 1 creates direct links between the Nodes Committee to the General Assembly and between the Nodes Committee to the Director-General, but the Nodes Committee’s role remains advisory. 30 In this model, the Director-General is the executive body of the DiSSCo ERIC, in charge of implementing the decisions of the General Assembly, supported by the Central Hub to operate the research infrastructure. The various advisory committees provide advice to the General Assembly, however, the Nodes Committee also works closely with the Director-General and it is expected that it will be consulted on a regular basis. This is for example the case in Elixir, as presented during the 3rd Workshop on Governance Model on 27 November 2021. Below is a description of the internal structure in model 1: General Assembly Composition - Representatives of the ERIC’s Members and Observers Responsibility - Responsible for the overall strategic direction of the research infrastructure - Oversees the implementation of the DiSSCo programs against pre-defined objectives Authority - Approve the strategy and strategic plan - Approve the work programme - Decide on amendments to the ERIC statutes and implementing rules - Approve the method for calculating and level of members’ contributions - Approve admission of new members and observers - Appoint and dismiss the Director-General - Appoint members of the advisory bodies and establish additional advisory bodies - Adopt implementing rules - Adopt the annual budget & annual activity report - Approve the annual accounts audit report - Wind-up the DiSSCO ERIC - Decide on any other matter that is necessary to fulfill the task of DiSSCo ERIC Director-General Composition - An individual person appointed by the GA Reports to - The General Assembly Responsibility 31 - The legal representative of the DiSSCo ERIC - Responsible for the implementation of the decisions by the GA - Consult the Nodes Committee in the process of preparing annual work programs Authority - Carry out the day-to-day management of the DiSSCo ERIC following the GA directions and decisions - Submit an annual activity report to the General Assembly after consultation with the Nodes Committee - Submit the annual report to the European Commission - Manage the Central Hub - Prepare DiSSCo work and financial plan for approval by the GA - Represent DiSSCo at national and international fora - Any other task as may be required by the GA Nodes Committee Composition - Representing Organisation of the National Nodes (RONNs) of the DiSSCo distributed facilities and Service Provider Nodes (SPNs), e.g. CETAF, that have a formal agreement with DiSSCo ERIC Reports to - The General Assembly / supports and advise the Director-General Responsibility - Advise the GA and the DG in relation to services provision - Collect and consolidate the views of the [participating nodes] with a view to formulating relevant recommendations - Formulates specific recommendations based on feedback provided by Service Provider and National Nodes - Provide advice on DiSSCo's annual work program Authority - Ensure alignment of the policies implemented in the distributed infrastructure. - Ensure consistency and coherency of the activities carried out at the DiSSCo distributed research infrastructure - Contribute to and advise the General Assembly and support the Director-General in relation to the preparation of the work program and the scientific strategy activities of the nodes 32 - Advise on national priorities and trends - Advise on user needs and new user communities at national level - Additional responsibilities, such as working with the Director-General in relation to certain activities relevant to the nodes Scientific & Technical Advisory body Composition - Independent experts selected on a worldwide basis, without a requirement to be based in a member or observer country Reports to - The General Assembly Responsibility - Provide advice on the scientific strategy of DiSSCo Authority - Advise the General Assembly on the matters of scientific, technical, and ethical nature of the DiSSCo activities - Evaluate the scientific, technical, and ethical activities of DiSSCo ERIC and report to the General Assembly on an annual basis Stakeholders Forum Composition - Representatives from DiSSCo partners in the creation and provision of services and end-user communities Reports to - The General Assembly Responsibility - Represent the user community’s needs and provide feedback on the scientific strategy and elements of the workplan Authority - Advise on new services needs and joint service creation - Evaluate the level of alignment of DiSSCo RI services with user's needs and the new user communities - Monitor joint programs and formulate new collaboration. - Advise on strategic partnership, also globally 33 DiSSCo Governance Model 2 Model 2 is characterised by a three-layer internal structure: the General Assembly, the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). In this model, the General Assembly remains the highest governing body (representing the collective interests of the member countries), but the executive body of DiSSCo ERIC is the Board of Directors which is composed of the CEO together with a number of representatives of the nodes nominated by the Nodes Committee. The Nodes Committee remains as an advisory committee but it nominates the members of the Board of Directors (out of the RONNs) to be appointed by the General Assembly. There is a possibility for a permanent seat for CETAF in the Board of Directors. The CEO does not have the freedom to make certain independent decisions within limits set by the General Assembly. Instead, it implements the decisions of the Board of Directors and acts on their behalf. It must seek their approval in advance for certain actions that exceed the boundaries of his or her instructions. Below is a description of the internal structure in model 2: General Assembly Composition - Representatives of the ERIC’s Members and Observers 34 Responsibility - Responsible for the overall strategic direction Authority - Approve the strategy and strategic plan - Approve the work programme - Decide on the amendment of the ERIC statutes and by-laws - Approve the method for calculating and level of members’ contributions - Approve admission of new members and observers - Appoint and dismiss members of the Board of Directors and the CEO - Appoint members of the advisory bodies & establish additional advisory bodies. - Adopt implementing rules - Adopt the annual budget & annual activity report - Approve the annual accounts audit report - Wind-up the DiSSCO ERIC - Decide on any other matter that is necessary to fulfil the task of DiSSCo ERIC Board of Directors Composition - [4-6] representatives from the DiSSCo facilities, the CEO (as Chair), and an option for a permanent position (e.g., CETAF) Reports to - The General Assembly Responsibility - Responsible for the implementation of the decisions by the General Assembly in accordance with the Statutes and applicable law - Oversees the RI operation and is responsible for the implementation of DiSSCo programs - Consult and implement the recommendations of the Nodes Committee while remaining loyal to the interests of the ERIC and the instructions of the General Assembly Authority - Responsible for the smooth operation of DiSSCo following the GA directions and decisions - Responsible for the development of the plan for achieving the strategic objectives, and work plan to implement the decisions of the GA 35 - Submit an annual activity report to the GA after consultation with the advisory committees - Prepare the DiSSCo strategy and financial plans for approval by the GA - Represent DiSSCo ERIC at national and international fora - Guarantee communication and harmonised implementation of programs with the DiSSCo nodes - Delegates responsibility for the day-to-day management of the ERIC to the CEO CEO Composition - An individual person appointed by the GA Reports to - The Board of Directors Responsibility - The legal representative of DiSSCo ERIC - Day-to-day management of the DiSSCo ERIC, implementing the decisions of the Board of Directors and monitoring of DiSSCo programs Authority - Manages the Central Hub - Implements the decisions of the BoD - Advises the BoD on operational and strategic issues - Formulates policies and planning recommendations to the BoD - Represents the DiSSCo ERIC, advocates for and promotes the RI - Submit the annual report to the European Commission Nodes Committee Composition - Representing Organisation of the National Nodes (RONNs) of the DiSSCo distributed facilities and Service Provider Nodes (SPNs), e.g. CETAF, that have a formal agreement with DiSSCo ERIC Reports to - The General Assembly / supports and advise the Board of Directors Responsibility - Advise the GA and the Board of Directors in relation to topics of relevance to nodes. 36 - Formulates specific recommendations based on feedback provided by Service Provider facilities and National Nodes - Provide advice on DiSSCo's annual work program Authority - Ensure alignment of the policies implemented in the distributed infrastructure - Ensure consistency and coherency of the activities carried out at the DiSSCo distributed research infrastructure - Advise the General Assembly and the Director-General in relation to the activities of the nodes - Advise on national priorities and trends - Advise on the preparation of the scientific strategy - Advise on user needs and new user communities at national level Scientific & Technical Advisory body Composition - Renowned experts Reports to - The General Assembly Responsibility - Provide advice on the scientific strategy of DiSSCo Authority - Advise the General Assembly on the matters of scientific, technical, and ethical nature of the DiSSCo activities - Evaluate the scientific, technical, and ethical activities of DiSSCo ERIC and report to the General Assembly on an annual basis Stakeholders Forum Composition - Representatives from DiSSCo partners in the creation and provision of services and end-user communities Reports to - The General Assembly Responsibility - Represent the user community’s needs and suggestions for improvement of DiSSCo Authority - Advise on new services provision and joint service creation 37 - Evaluate the level of alignment of DiSSCo RI services with user's needs and the new user communities - Monitor joint programs and formulate new collaboration - Advise on strategic partnership, also globally DiSSCo Governance Model 3 Model 3 During the workshops conducted to discuss models 1 and 2, a number of difficulties were highlighted with each one of the models. While Model 1 works well for ELIXIR, some stakeholders felt that it did not provide enough space to facilitate the active participation of institutions and nodes at the executive level of DiSSCo ERIC. This is because the Nodes Committee’s role is limited to advisory under model 1, and not executive (albeit working closely with the Director-General as well). Model 2, on the other hand, requires that a small number of representatives from the Nodes Committee will actively lead the management of the DiSSCo ERIC and form the executive level. This may be problematic as they may find themselves in a conflict with their own institution’s agenda, and there is also no guarantee that they will be fully committed to this demanding role or can work well together. Against this background, model 3 provides a hybrid between the two models, whereby the Nodes Committee can nominate a number of representatives to be appointed to an Executive Board (or Executive Committee) that will work closely with the Director-General but will not replace the function of the Director-General (as in the case of model 2). As 38 Questions related to post-Brexit ELI-RI AISBL (Associate Director - Integrated Organisational Development - Florian Gliksohn) 1Which are the areas where the UK may find constraints to participate? Is about the VAT, the acceptance of the EU Court for disputes, or where? Different areas: 1. Since DiSSCo is an RI that will strongly rely on established research organisations, you're going to have a challenge generally with the VAT exemption, because, in most countries, it doesn't benefit representing entities. The ERIC only (I'm simplifying) can enjoy it. Which means, in your case, that the scope of the exemption will remain limited unless you find a system that allows costs to be borne directly by the ERIC (e.g. CERIC-ERIC, unique in the way manage VAT). The UK, if it were to join the ERIC, would have to grant the same exemptions anyway as a pre-condition, so I don't really see an issue there. 2. The recognition of the competence of the EU Court of Justice is an issue, but it's a precondition anyway for the UK to be a member. 3. More generally, there are on-going discussions with the UK as the UK has recently been asking for provisions in ERIC Statutes that it intends to join that recognise its right to withdraw from an ERIC with quasiimmediate effect in case a change in the ERIC Regulation were to affect materially their rights and obligations. This has been the subject of discussions with the EC that is not in favour of such provisions as they are seen as affecting the sustainability of ERICs. This debate has not yet come to a conclusion. 4. I could see some issue about to what extent there could be some clashes between regulations applying in the EU and in the UK.There could be all sorts of other elements to consider: GDPR rules, mobility of staff, customs, etc. 2What kind of requirements we should include in the agreement with the UK as a third country? At this stage, there's not much you can do since this is subject to discussions between the UK and the EU. What I would recommend at this stage is that you consider another form of association or partnership as a fallback option in case the UK is not in favour of joining. This would typically be a contractual agreement between the ERIC and the UK organising the involvement of the British organisations, participation of the UK in the governance, financial relations, etc. 3 ERIC challenges - text endorsed by both parties "third countries other than associated countries, or intergovernmental organisations, may withdraw from ELI ERIC, following changes in Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 that would materially affect their rights and obligations in relation to ELI ERIC. In this instance, and where it applies, the obligation to pay any contribution is also terminated. Other liabilities shall be evaluated by an independent arbitrator agreed by the withdrawing party and ELI ERIC" U.K Statement at the FF2 meeting (May 10, 2021) 1. There is no legal obstacle to the UK becoming a member of an ERIC. The UK Government adopted the ERIC regulation into law in 2019. 2. Following EU Exit, however, the UK government has stated that in order for the UK to become a full member, three principles would need to be set out in the ERIC statutes. These are: a. Changes to the statute, i.e. the legal basis of our membership, would need to be agreed unanimously by the General Assembly or the body of Government Representatives. b. Changes to the mechanism through which the financial contribution is calculated need to be agreed unanimously by the same body. c. In the event of changes to EU law, the UK would reserve the right to withdraw with immediate effect and without penalty. 3. If these principles cannot be included in the statutes, then the UK could not become a full member. We would instead seek to negotiate a bilateral agreement which would aim, as far as was legally possible, to replicate member benefits and responsibilities. Questions CLARIN (Executive Director - Franziska De Jong) 1 Could you describe the executive level of CLARIN governance chart? CLARIN is one of the rare RI where the executive power is shared by an Executive Director and a Board of Directors. The BoD members include three experts from partners institutions responsible for the technical developments (full time position) and strategic supervision (1,5 FTEs paid). The Executive Director is the Chair of the BoD. The main function of the BoD is to support the Executive Director in the daily management. 2 Has the structure changed with time? Yes, there are ongoing discussions to modify the BoD functions to enable them to take ownership at least of: Technical, HR, Financial and Strategic operation (linking the Central Hub with the Nodes Committee). Furthermore, the Executive Director position has become crucial for the central management, coordination and effective implementation of the decisions taken by the GA members. 3 Would you recommend a model with a strong executive direction or not? Experience says that it is highly advisable to have a strong Executive Director supported by a small group of expert professionals as BoD. The other way around may increase complexity in the daily management by the ExD and can impact a fluent communication with stakeholder and EU level. It is not recommended by the ERIC Committee, and it does not necessarily fill the communication gap between the GA and the Central Hub. DiSSCo National Nodes consultation process Table of Content Introduction 2 Analysis of the responses to the governance model alternatives 2 2.1 Responses to Model 1 3 2.2 Responses to Model 2 5 2.3 Responses to Model 3 7 2.4 Other remarks 9 2.5 CETAF EC considerations 9 Annex I Table of responses of partners participating in the consultation 10 1 1. Introduction This is a summary report of the responses from fifteen (15) national nodes and institutions and the CETAF Executive Committee, provided between 21 December 2021 and 02 February 2022 on the options analysis document circulated to DiSSCo national nodes in December 2021. The analysis of the consultation aims at offering a view of the ongoing discussions and the position of the DiSSCo community of practises The DiSSCo National Nodes consultation was part of the work towards the definition of the overarching governance model for the DiSSCo-ERIC. The DiSSCo interim General Assembly took into consideration the results when deciding on the most suitable governance model for DiSSCo-ERIC (iGA3, March 24-25, 2022). Previous to the launch of the consultation, the National Nodes representatives were informed about the process and the content of the report through monthly meetings. On January 11, the technical report was thoroughly presented by the DiSSCo legal advisor and the team in charge of its preparation to clarify any detail that may be necessary for a full understanding of the governance models proposed and the expected contributions during the consultation. A drop-in session was organised a week later to address further questions. 2 2. Analysis of the responses to the governance model alternatives 2.1. Responses to Model 1 Q1 To what extent does Model1 accommodate the needs of your DiSSCo National Node for participation in the decision making process of DiSSCo-ERIC? Model 1 represents an efficient governing structure that allows the Director-General to execute decisions from the GA straightforwardly, and without excessive bureaucracy. Providing there is a good relationship established between the National Node and the representative of the GA, the decisions taken in the GA should reflect the NN’s needs, although it is not guaranteed. 3 It is considered by most participants as a model that does not facilitate inclusiveness and the effective participation of institutions in the decision making process. The situation may become worse for those institutions not represented in the General Assembly. That might be alleviated by a regular interaction between the Director General (with a good understanding of the specificities across nodes and institutions) and the Nodes Committee (e.g the case with ELIXIR but can be articulated in any other way). However, the model does not clearly state a way to formalise it and there is a risk that the General Secretary becomes isolated from the Nodes. Participants identify the lack of community representation as a strong weakness of Model 1. Q2 To what extent does Model 1 facilitate the participation of CETAF in the decision making process of DiSSCo-ERIC? Model 1 does not facilitate any role for CETAF in the decision making process and positions it equally to other stakeholders. That might lead to loose CETAF’s expertise and its role as strong community representative. However, some responses question the need for CETAF to be part of the decision-making process though they recognise its important role in DiSSCo operation. They highlighted the importance to prevent the model from increasing bureaucracy and point to the need to identify terms for collaboration between DiSSCo and its most important stakeholder. Some partners suggest CETAF participate through the Stakeholders Advisory Body instead of through the Nodes Committee. Q3 To what extent does Model 1 balance the interests of the different internal and external stakeholders large and small in the decision making process? Model 1 does not provide a balance between stakeholders interests. Thus, the model gives similar weight to internal and external stakeholders which is perceived by partners as source of conflict among the parties. 4 Q4 How would you evaluate Model 1 in terms of effectiveness (helping DiSSCo accomplish its mission), efficiency (in terms of operation of the RI), and robustness (think of future growth, potential conflicts with national priorities)? Model 1 main strength is efficiency, lack of bureaucracy, transparency, clear structure, and accountability. However, partners identify as negative the lack of community representation during the decision-making process, the risks already identified of isolation of the General Assembly or lack of procedures that guarantee good cooperation with the Nodes Committee. 2.2. Responses to Model 2 Q1 To what extent does Model 2 accommodate the needs of your DiSSCo National Node for participation in the decision making process of DiSSCo-ERIC? 5 Model 2 allows for participation and representation of DiSSCo institutions. The model is inclusive and enhances the executive role of national nodes that will be able to advise and support the General Assembly through having representatives in the Board of Directors and their participation in more than one advisory body. Some partners, however, identify as a risk the complexity in the decision-making process. Also, the possible lack of experience/skills among BoD members. It is noted as well, the question of equal representation among national nodes and the need to set up clear principles of participation to prevent conflicts. Q2 To what extent does Model 2 facilitate the participation of CETAF in the decision making process of DiSSCo-ERIC? Model 2 facilitates the role of CETAF in the decision making process. Most of the partners perceive as positive giving CETAF a permanent seat in the BoD which would allow a stronger visibility of the community from countries not members of DiSSCo-ERIC. However, some partners point to a question that remains, how responsibilities between DiSSCo and CETAF are allocated, and how DiSSCo-ERIC will handle the problem of double memberships (institutions represented in the GA and again via CETAF). Furthermore, there is the risk of conflict among partners if a BoD seat is permanently occupied by a partner. Q3 To what extent does Model 2 balance the interests of the different internal and external stakeholders large and small in the decision making process? Model 2 is an unbalanced model when providing executive powers to institutions and CETAF in the BoD. Also, there is a risk in the case some institutions are represented in DiSSCo GA, BoD and the Nodes Committee. External stakeholders’ interests will be only addressed through the advisory body, the Stakeholders Forum. This unbalance must be carefully discussed. That might be alleviated if duties associated with the involvement of stakeholders could be addressed as part of the BoD responsibilities. 6 1 1. Introduction The main outcomes from the DiSSCo Governance models technical report and consultation process with DiSSCo NNs were presented during the third meeting of the Funders Forum Advisory Body (February 17-18, 2022). After a thorough review of the models, the FF members present in the meeting (representatives of nine of eleven countries), agreed to provide statements, including a justification of their preferences and recommendations, if any. The statements would produce an unfiltered report to be shared with the iGA members to facilitate the discussion at the iGA4 meeting (March 24-25, 2022). This report collects those statements and recommendations. 2. National positions National position of Belgium Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) / Department of Economy, Science and Innovation - Flanders (EWI) As mentioned in the meeting we prefer Model 1 or Model 3. With a preference for Model 1 because it is simple and straightforward. It works very well in Elixir. Model 2 is not preferred because it has a too complex executive level which will hamper the infrastructure in the long term. The most important in whatever model is chosen is that the tasks/responsibilities/ roles of each “body or group” within the structure are well defined. And that the profile of the members of each body or group is well defined as well. Conflicts of interest must be avoided at all costs. The model chosen should enhance interactions between the nodes, the funders, and the GA. All entities institutes … must feel to be welcome and supported. This creates ownership which is most important. Additional observations: Section 3 of this document. 2 National position of Bulgaria Ministry of Education and Science The Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Bulgaria as a funding organization of the Bulgarian participation in DiSSCo believes that all the three proposed governance models are suitable and will allow successful governance of the project. We believe that each of them will be efficient to find a balance in considering the interests of the participating parties. Since the main actors (museums, botanical gardens, research institutes) are rather uniform in their organization and interests, we do not think that serious contradictions and discrepancies would arise in the process of the establishment and during the functional stage of the research infrastructure. In view of the simplicity of the management procedures, the two-layer structure of the Model 3 (General Assembly plus Director-General supported by an Executive Board) seems simple and at the same time sufficiently efficient for implementation for both decision-making and coordination activities. The wide nomination and election of the members by the national nodes will guarantee to take into account the level of experience and specific problems of the various national nodes. The permanent participation of a CETAF representative is also a positive characteristic of this model. We believe that this model will allow both wide consultations with the participating parties and a rather simple process of decision making. Though our preference to Model 3, we believe that each of the three models might be found efficient and we shall accept the prevailing opinion when selecting the governance model. National position of Denmark Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science / University of Copenhagen The DiSSCo project is entirely dependent on active participation and delivery of digital data from National Nodes and their institutions. In terms of effectiveness, robustness and to secure ownership, it is important that national nodes play an active role in shaping DiSSCo. DK finds, that this is not the case for model number 1, where national nodes and other internal stakeholders have little influence. In terms of robustness and effectiveness, DK believes that model number 2 will serve as the best governance model because collaboration and devotion of national nodes are needed in order to secure the robustness and effectiveness of DiSSCo. In terms of efficiency, DK finds that model number 2 is more substantial than model number 1, but yet considered workable. Model number 3 is intermediate between model 1 and 2 and is considered less preferable than model 2, but better than model 1. As for the risk of “double representation” of National Nodes and other internal stakeholders in the BoD in model 2, we consider the risk very small, since the GA is 3 mainly government representatives, whereas the representatives in the BoD are mainly National Nodes. Same argument goes for CETAF representation. We consider it important to secure the representation of CETAF since CETAF represent a very well-established forum of collaboration among European museums, and CETAF represents a broad range of data providers from small to large museums. National position of Estonia Ministry of Education and Research Estonia prefers Governance Model 3. We think that this model is best suited to DiSSCo RI’s activities. The Director-General has clear responsibilities and the community is involved at the executive level through Executive Board. CETAF will be represented on the Nodes Committee and there is no need to have permanent seat for CETAF in Executive Board. It is also important, that the General Assembly approves the composition of the Executive Board from the list of nominations proposed by the Node Committee and that the rotation of members of the Executive Board takes place after a certain period of time. The Governance Model 1 is also well suited and efficient one, but not very inclusive of the community at the executive level. The Governance Model 2 is the least favoured as it is the most complex. National position of France Ministry of Research France is not in favour of option 2 which would lead to an inefficient direction. Option 1 and 3 are possible taking into account the fact that only the Scientific Advisory board advises the GA. More precisely the Nodes Committee and the stakeholder advisory board should advise only the Director-General National position of Greece Natural Environment and Climate Change Agency Model 3 is the preferable governance model for Greece. This model seems to be less flexible than Model 1, however, the existence of the Executive Board increases institutes' involvement. In addition, it enhances interaction among members of the DISSCO-ERIC 4 and National Nodes (NN) not represented in the GA. Thus, it is proposed that members of the Executive Board are appointed by the NNs not represented in the GA. National position of Italy National Research Council (CNR) The recent discussions and analysis pursued by WP 7 on governance models for the future DiSSCo ERIC (deliverable 3.4) have led to three different models. In order to ensure suitable governance and significant participation and involvement of partners and stakeholders, Italy supports Governance model 3. As the governance structure of the DiSSCo ERIC should be characterized by simplicity, flexibility and transparency, model 3 (hybrid) - resulting in as a combination between model 1 and 2 - is certainly preferable to facilitate efficient operations, reflecting at the same time the fundamental values of DiSSCo. Under model 3, the Executive Board - composed of members nominated by the National Nodes - represents the functional connection between the executive body (DirectorGeneral) and the scientific community (National Nodes). In this governance scenario, the Executive Board supports the Director-General in implementing the decisions by the General Assembly, the DiSSCo programmes and the recommendations of the Nodes Committee while the Director-General should consult and seek advice from the Executive Board. The governance model 3 ensures a good balance between bodies deputed to the managerial and executive tasks - fundamental for effective governance of the ERIC - and those representing the scientific community in the decision-making process. Italy believes that model 3 would be a good compromise between model one and two. National position of The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science / Research Council First of all, the Netherlands would like to thank DiSSCo CSO for all the work and the clear way the information was presented. We believe it is good to address these important topics openly and involve the countries in an early stage. Based on the currently available information, the Netherlands could support all three governance models. However, a formal and final position on the governance of DiSSCo requires further elaboration. In choosing the right governance model it is most important that the governance model is best suited for the goals and activities that you want. In the case DiSSCo, we also see 5 benefits in a model in which the community is sufficiently reflected, and on the other hand, is as lean and mean as possible. Therefore, we believe governance model 3 could be an interesting compromise between model 1 and 2. National position of Slovakia Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport Regarding the position of the Slovak republic in relation to the DiSSCo governance models presented during the 3 Funder Forum meeting, we would like to inform you, that we prefer the DiSSCo governance model No. 3, which meets DiSSCo RI long-term mission & principles of efficient sustainability. 3. Additional observations Point of view of Belgium on the future structure of DiSSCo Infrastructure The General Assembly (GA): Members of the General Assembly (GA) are representing their country (the members) and should have the power to decide on funding etc. Two delegates per country, with one vote is most often applied in ERICs. It is allowed to have a scientific and a ministerial delegate, but it is up to the country to decide that and should not be a request of the governance model. Anyhow it should be delegates speaking for their country (and of course all institutes and scientists of that country). It is not OK for us that a node representative or a scientist involved in DiSSCo takes the role of country delegate (in that sense we do not agree with what is mentioned as proposal in the minutes). The reason is that this way a conflict of interest rises which should be avoided. We agree in that sense with the remark of France in the funders forum meeting that the nodes should advice the director-general and not the GA. We need more information about the role and the composition of the stakeholders forum. Its role is not clear to us. In order to create optimal interaction it could be favorable that the head of nodes (ore a node representative ) can attend the GA as an expert without voting rights. In these meetings they can be asked to provide information but will not speak as delegate or as the representative of the country. As mentioned in the funders forum we need a strong interaction between the nodes and the GA This could be achieved by doing so. We could apply this in the three models. It would also be an answer on one of the drawbacks of model 1. This works fine in Elixir but is applied in other ERICs as well. For example in ICOS some countries invite a node representative as expert to the GA. We recognize that CETAF has and still plays an important role for the construction of DiSSCo and especially to progress towards its implementation. In order to keep CETAF on board in future with a prominent role, the GA could invite CETAF as observer or as expert in 6 the GA, within the more efficient and simpler model 1. We would prefer to have this mentioned in the rules of operation and not in the statutes. Because things might change in the long term. If it is mentioned in the statutes it should be done in a “general” way by not mentioning CETAF as such. The Node committee: The Node committee is an important body. It is the body were the scientists discuss the scientific issues of the infrastructure. Yearly scientific plans, Five year scientific plans, requirements ….. This all should be discussed under the presidency of the HUB (in essence the director general). All head of Nodes ( or the Node representative) should take part in the node committee. It could also be two persons per node (depending on the number of nodes). This way the Nodes advice the Director-General. If necessary, the node committee could establish different working groups which work towards aspects necessary for the infrastructure (Data, other aspects or WP …). Model 1 or model 3: We prefer model 1 as it is simple and straightforward. The roles are clear, and the DirectorGeneral is neutral and plays a pivotal role. We can live with model 3 but certain conditions should be fulfilled. The role of the executive committee should be clear and should make sure that everybody feels represented. Also the small institutions, the institutions running ahead and the institutions which have a longer way to go. In that sense we fear that the members of the Executive committee may not be neutral. This is a possible disadvantage of model 3 Therefore, the tasks of the committee should be clear. The composition must be well described in rules of operations. We prefer that the committee members are appointed through voting in the GA and that also CETAF should be invited through voting of the GA. It is not Ok that Institutes being part of CETAF are also individually appointed via their staff members in the executive committee of DiSSCo (model 3). It should be avoided that some institutes are represented twice. This creates a conflict of Interest. The Director General is by default the chair of the executive committee and has the duty to safeguard the neutrality of the executive committee. For the sake of both CETAF and DiSSCo, a situation where an institution must choose between remaining member of CETAF or running to be elected in the DiSSCo executive committee should be avoided. Considering the large number of institutions both in CETAF and the DiSSCo nodes it would undermine the contributions and engagements, because of conflict of interest issues. Therefore inviting CETAF as observer or expert of the GA in model 1 would make it easier for all. In Model 3 it will be more difficult to keep a strong connection between the HUB-The director general and the nodes.