ISSC12-2.2 1/23

MINUTES of the

11th MEETING of the International SKA Steering Committee

Cape Town, South Africa 15-16 January 2004

Chair Jill C Tarter Secretary Wim N Brouw Australian SKA Consortium Brian J Boyle Wim N Brouw Canadian SKA Consortium A Russ Taylor (till 13:00 16 January) National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Bo Peng

European SKA Consortium Arnold van Ardenne Harvey R Butcher Franco Mantovani Peter N Wilkinson Phil J Diamond J Anton Zensus National Centre for Radio Astrophysics A Pramesh Rao US SKA Consortium Jim M Cordes Ken I Kellermann Robert A Preston Jill C Tarter Yervant Terzian Joe Lazio (for William J Welch) At Large Bernie F Burke Ron D Ekers Attending (director) Richard T Schilizzi Invited (for Japan) Makoto Inoue Invited (for host country) Justin Jonas Invited (as SSWG chair) Steven Tingay Invited (as IEMT chair) Peter J Hall (present for 4.4

and on 16 January)

ISSC11 1/23

ISSC12-2.2 2/23

Welcome by Dr Baldwin Sipho Ngubane, Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology of the Republic of South Africa

Dr Baldwin Ngubane welcomed the ISSC to Cape Town, describing South Africans scientific highlights from archaeology through Antarctic research to astronomy, and the importance the government attaches to international cooperation and technical development. In this policy climate the SKA “pearls spread out across the African continent” would fit very well.

1. Approval of agenda At the request of van Ardenne a proposal to add additional members was added to the agenda. It was combined with a related proposal by the chair (11.1). Preparation for the election at the next ISSC (ISSC12) was added as 11.2 Diamond moved, Terzian seconded approval of the agenda. All in favour. 2. Approval of minutes of 10th ISSC meeting at Geraldton, 1-2 August 2003 A clarification of the member-at-large attendance will be made. With no other changes the minutes were adopted. Tarter commented that the term “IPO” has a negative connotation in the USA, and suggests the use of “ISPO” in all official documents. In the same vein Brouw points out that the “IEMT” prefers that name to the often used “EMT”, and that “Key Science Projects” is preferred over “Level-0 science”, and easier to understand by outsiders. The Executive committee recommends that these three terms are used within in the project. All are in favour.

2.1. Approval of public version of minutes 10th ISSC meeting The minutes of the 10th ISSC meeting were approved unchanged for public release. 3. Organisational matters

3.1. Confirming official representation and quorum The official representation from the member organisations is as given in document 3.1, with the exception of Joe Lazio replacing William J Welch as US representative. A quorum was present.

3.2. Proposal for appointment of new Member-at-large The chair, following earlier discussions at ISSC10, and with the support of a letter received from the Australian SKA Consortium, proposes to appoint Ron D Ekers as member-at-large. Terzian moved, Butcher seconded. All in favour. After election Ekers states that he will be more an international representative than an Australian one.

3.3. IPE appointment: charter and time organisation Peter J Hall was selected as International Project Engineer, and will start on 1 February 2004. He will be seconded to the ISPO for a year, and will spend extended periods in the US, NL and AU. The ATNF will pre-finance his appointment. 4. ISSC committee reports (chairs are invited) The December 2003 Newsletter reports of the committees had most of the recent developments. In the following only current developments are noted.

4.1. ISAC Schilizzi described major developments.

ISSC11 2/23

ISSC12-2.2 3/23

The Leiden meeting in November 2003 led to a proposal for the “Key Science Projects” (originally called the “Level-0 science”) by a sub-committee led by Bryan Gaensler (see agenda item 9.3). Dayton Jones led the effort to produce a revised version of the SKA Science requirements (agenda item 9.4). Using these outcomes, Carole Jackson will produce a revised version of SKA Memo 29 “SKA science – a parameter space analysis”. Preston saw the need for the compliance matrix to be redone. Schilizzi answered that no immediate actions on the compliance matrix were planned, but pointed to the update of Memo 29 as the next step in this process.. The Leiden meeting, with 45 participants, made progress on the revision of the overall science case. A first outline draft is expected in April 2004, together with a full draft for the Chapters on the key science projects. The aim is to send the science case to the publishers (New Astronomy Reviews) in June/July 2004. NAR will allow the proceedings to be published simultaneously on the web. Lazio quoted Carilli by being hopeful that more progress was made than indicated by the relatively small amount of feedback from the authors of the various Chapters up till now. The ISSC urged the ISAC to stress the importance of having the Executive Summary and the Key Science projects chapter available before the Berlin meeting in May 2004 (Action Schilizzi). Schilizzi described the proposed change in organisation by splitting the advisory and Workgroup aspects of the ISAC, and putting the WG activities under a Project Scientist. Responding to a question by Kellermann he stated that an internationally funded P.Sc. was not foreseen until 2006. Ekers said that the PSc position could be part-time in the interim. It was noted that Chris Carilli wishes to step down as ISAC chair after the Penticton meeting. Tarter raised the “étendu” measure (Collecting area * FOV [=field-of-view]) which at optical wavelengths was seen to create discovery space if it exceeded 200 (deg.m)2. Tarter suggested that it might be possible to use Martin Harwitt’s book Cosmic Discovery to quantify how much new observable phase space the SKA will open. A Chapter in the science case will be devoted to this according to Lazio Butcher asked if the ISAC was looking at comparing the various designs in discovery space, and how this should be quantified. In addition he asked if there was explicit discussion of the requirements indicating where the SKA exceeds the capabilities of other large facilities by a significant factor, and where it is only an add-on. Cordes and Lazio are writing a Chapter on comparing SKA with other radio telescopes in the field of transient detection. The ISSC felt that it was important to broaden this to telescopes in other regions of the electro-magnetic spectrum.. Cordes raised the question of highlighting discovery science as an explicit Key Science Project. Exploration of the unknown had to be recognised as a role for the telescope, and this point should be made very clearly in the introductory chapter to the book, perhaps with a discovery space diagram. After proposals to add this as “Level -1” (Boyle), to have a separate ISAC WG (Ekers) and to use the excellent contribution by Reinhard Genzel on discovery space opportunities as a result of technology change (Quantum Measurement) at the recent OECD GSF meeting (http://www.oecd.org/sti/gsf), the ISSC expressed it as an important item that should be properly addressed in both the Key Science Projects and the Science Case as a whole. Schilizzi pointed out that having a WG was difficult at such short notice. At the request of the chair, Wilkinson volunteered to organise a teleconference on the question of “Discovery Science”, including Cordes, Ekers, Kellermann, Wilkinson (organiser), Chris Carilli, Steve Rawlings, Lazio, and if possible Reinhard Genzel at the latest in February 2004, with a discussion of the results early March.

ISSC11 3/23

ISSC12-2.2 4/23

4.2. SESC

In a meeting directly preceding the ISSC, the SESC discussed the site selection procedure, and suggests giving in the final selection procedure roughly equal weight to scientific and RFI/atmospheric criteria; and about half weight to other criteria. The Science and Atmosphere criteria to be split between High and Low frequency science (below and above about 1.5 GHz). Until the ISSC advises otherwise a 50-50 split in weight is initially assumed. It is the intention of the SESC to publish the selection criteria, to make the selection procedure as transparent as possible. To a question by Preston Terzian replied that extra incentives by proposers (e.g. financial) were not taken into account at this stage, and should according to the SESC be part of final discussions between (almost) equal contenders, not be taken into account in the initial, scientific selection stage. A number of points were raised during the discussion. The ISSC decided:

- If one of the criteria received a zero weight factor (indicating ‘impossible’) the site will be disqualified

- The selection process and the criteria should be public, but not in too much detail: “Sites will be ranked by an independent committee, taking into account the following criteria.” Listing the criteria as above.

- Weights should be used as an indication of the level of effort that should be put in to support each item; not necessarily as explicit coefficients in an evaluation formula.

The SESC proposed to adopt the proposal by ASTRON for the execution of the RFI

measurements. Ekers asked why there was only one proposal received. Tarter answered that the US proposal could not be submitted, due to a move by the lead proposer to another University. ASTRON has offered to pre-finance the building of the equipment. In addition, some of the hardware necessary could be on loan during the RFI investigation. The cost of some of the manpower for the actual measurements on-site (as mentioned in the proposal) is in fact manpower of the site proposer. The time-scale for building the equipment is 5-6 months after project start.

Schilizzi proposed that the actual execution of the RFI observations and the order in which they will be done (e.g. in “summer” or “winter”) will be overseen by a WG consisting of ISPO and one contact person per site proposing country. (see 9.6 for decisions). Ekers asked clarification of a comment that only one site per country would be considered. It was his understanding from previous discussions and the letter to the sites that only one site per country would be measured by the ISPO (as in all cases to calibrate the ongoing measurements per site over a long period), but that measurements at other sites could be cross-calibrated in the same way. The ensuing discussion was wide-ranging, with the majority opinion indicating that selection as the RFI test site should give a clear message that the country gives preference to that site. In conclusion it was, however, noted that the final selection should stay open. There could be political or environmental issues that only came to the fore after long-term measurements, which could necessitate preferring another site. Butcher noted that the two Chinese sites are really different sites, which could warrant two separate RFI validation measurement series. Peng explained that information about the desert site had been given, based on optical site testing. However, if only one site per country could be proposed for the validation measurements, the KARST site was preferred.

ISSC11 4/23

ISSC12-2.2 5/23

The SESC proposed to postpone the final decision on the precise wording of the RFP for hosting the SKA until the Penticton meeting, since a draft RFP is not yet available. The RFP will be the first major step in the overall SKA selection process, and is too important to be handled only in email discussion. The SESC will produce a first draft of the RFP internally in March 2004, and will have a complete proposal available for the Penticton meeting. The RFP will only be sent to the short-listed sites.

The ad-hoc Working Group on tropospheric site testing (Burke, Butcher, Ekers, and Kellermann) reported on their conclusions:

- there is no need for in-situ interferometric measurements of phase stability at this time - quantitative meteorological data including satellite data should be assembled by the site

proponents to characterise the water vapour content throughout the year - the project must study the capabilities of self-calibration as a means of removing the

effects of differential phase fluctuations. This should be done in a quantitative way using simulations of the effects of tropospheric phase stability and variations in opacity on image quality.

The ISSC accepted these recommendations. Boyle noted that there is a delay of 6 months in the production of the draft RFP, and asked if that indicates a delay in the selection procedure. Terzian replied that the actual date of the RFP will only be delayed from May 2004 till July 2004, and that even if responses are requested after one year, they will be in time for the October 2005 ISSC meeting. However, if in the end 6 sites have to be RFI tested and validated, the test period could extend until the end of 2005, with the final report available shortly thereafter. However, most of the RFP could be answered independent of the RFI validation measurements, and a complete advice to the ISSC by an advisory committee could still be made in 2006Q1. The ISSC accepted this, noting that the final site selection could be done at an extra ISSC meeting.

4.3. SSWG

Steven Tingay referred to his report for details of SSWG activities since the last ISSC meeting. He highlighted

- the investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of using AIPS++ for the SKA simulation package

- progress in installing the MIT-Haystack LOFAR simulator (available in Swinburne end-February)

- progress with the cost/performance calculator/simulator In the convergence workshop preceding the ISSC meeting and include them in the simulation programme envisaged by the SSWG, the question was raised on how to characterise the various hybrid proposals. Before starting to answer that question, Tingay noted that it is necessary to have in place:

- Key Science projects relative weights - Restrictions on the technical parameter space - Identification of specific simulation tasks - More resources (both manpower and CPU)

ISSC11 5/23

ISSC12-2.2 6/23

Manpower resources are being planned by the European RadioNet Consortium through the Framework 6 Programme, by the US NSF request and by the Italian CNR, while, furthermore, some more active people have joined the SSWG. The cost/performance modelling is progressing well, with the equations coded for the LNSD, LL, Cylinder concepts. The first goal is to identify the common sub-systems in all the concepts. Preston commented that operational costs should be taken into account in the costing model. Rao asked who posed the questions to the SSWG. Tingay explained that it was an ongoing discussion within the overall mandate given by the ISSC, but all groups (IEMT, ISAC, ISPO) where involved in the SSWG discussions. Schilizzi explained that the SSWG is different from the other groups that they have a large open membership, and act at the moment to focus discussion and plans worldwide, and is doing that very well. Once the various funding are successful, the SSWG will attempt to coordinate the worldwide set of activitiesto achieve a coherent effort.. Preston remarked that the down selection process needs to specify questions on simulation to be answered in the 2007/2008 time frame. Tingay agreed with a suggestion by Schilizzi that tropospheric effects influencing self-calibration at high-frequencies be taken into account early in the SSWG work programme in view of its importance to the site selection process..Jonas indicated that a proposal for a South African supercomputer centre that was recently submitted has requested manpower (and cycles) for SKA simulation work. It could be envisaged that national teams could take on specific packages. Rao and Taylor explained that Indian and Canadian ties through Universities are also possible. Mantovani explained that CNR will second manpower to Swinburne. He proposed to use this manpower as an in-kind contribution to the ISSC. Schilizzi pointed out that the ISPO needs cash. Brouw pointed out that participation in the work groups are on a self-paying basis, and have never been included in any ISSC budget. 6. Director’s report

6.1. Outreach A first version of the new web format is available (see www.skatelescope.org/demo/index850.html ). It has entries for different interest groups. Stephanie Vogele of ASTRON has worked on the design. The ISSC members are asked to have a look and comment on the format and contents. The Outreach Committee will have a teleconference in February 2004. Heino Falcke is starting on a multi-page brochure, directed towards science case. Preston suggested adding more colour graphics to the web pages. Schilizzi warned against the use of too many colours in view of printing legibility on non-colour printers. Van Ardenne suggested to have regular quarterly reports about activities, reports etc. Tarter, Preston, Ekers suggested a wider distribution of the newsletter. One option is to add it to the AAS and EAS newsletters, or to use the IAU Division X (radio astronomy) distribution list. Brouw suggested having a semi-annual Newsletter, one month before each ISSC meeting to minimise the amount of reporting by the committees and countries. ISSC agreed to this suggestion.

6.2. Contacts with ISSC organisations and members See written report

6.3. OECD global science developments The first meeting of the Global Science Forum on future large astronomical instruments was very positive for the SKA, not in the least due to the talks by Reinhard Genzel and Brian

ISSC11 6/23

ISSC12-2.2 7/23

Boyle. These talks gave the broad scientific and technical picture of the importance of the SKA. However, it will remain a hard job to sway all of our colleagues. Schilizzi suggested that Genzel would be an extremely valuable member of the SKA Science and/or Engineering Advisory Committees. The next meeting will be held in Washington DC, USA early April. The goal is to incorporate space representatives (who were absent in first meeting) and plans to look across the spectrum plans for the next two decades, and make an analysis of trends. Kellermann asked if there were [other] international scientific conferences that discuss instruments as part of the scientific programme. Schilizzi mentioned an upcoming cosmology conference. Kellermann suggested that the SKA should be actively involved in these conferences, and was supported by the ISSC. During discussion with the GSF secretary at the GSF meeting, it was suggested that the OECD could setup an international, generic project office, to act as banker and auditing institute, and use the knowledge of the OECD to aid internationalisation of new initiatives. The SKA could be the first client, and act as an example. If the ISSC agrees, it will be suggested to the OECD science ministers’ conference end of January as a topic to be researched by the OECD office. Tarter supported the idea: it will give an international home; creates a legal entity; will audit finances; will give a high visibility in international and national science circles; could find a way to enable parity between cash and in-kind contributions. Rao mentioned that India is not a member of the OECD. He has been advised by the Indian government not to get involved in OECD bureaucracy. Peng mentioned that for science meetings non-members are always invited (like China, South Africa) and are not discriminated against at all during meetings. Like the GSF meeting, it has a very positive influence on the Chinese attitude towards SKA. The initial step will be to raise the possibility of researching the creation of an OECD project office. If Ministers’ conference asks the OECD office to look into it, some respons could be expected in the second half of the year. The OECD is not expected to endorse in any way the SKA explicitly if and when it creates an international office, and the ISPO becomes a part of it. The only disadvantage that could be seen in such a development could be the US’s general attitude towards large international cooperations. However, the NSF is in favour of following this route to creating a legal entity. Taylor moved to ask the OECD to create an international project office; Boyle seconded. Burke opposed; Lazio abstained on formal grounds; all others in favour. Boyle and Schilizzi will implement decision.

6.4. Report on convergence workshop After this initial workshop, a small number of hybrids for further discussion should be selected: pathfinders, pathways. Organisations will be asked by the ISPO to consider the timelines for pathfinders vs. the overall project timelines. A matrix of the technology interdependencies between the various concepts in the hybrid proposals has been started. The IEMT has been asked to comment on the hybrid proposals; the ISAC will comment on the science and the options for de-scoping in the proposals if the overall costs exceed the 1000 million USD envelope. A summary of the workshop will be distributed in February, and a second workshop will be held during the Penticton meeting..

6.5. Report on industrialisation process The industry day in Cape Town followed the precedence set in Sydney and being followed in Penticton as well. The first task of the Industrial Liaison Committee (under Peter Hall as IPE) will be to look for global synergies in areas of interest to industry. An example is e.g. a new

ISSC11 7/23

ISSC12-2.2 8/23

South African solar panel, which matches the solar panel work going on in Australia. It was noted that is not easy to excite and work with international industry until there is a financed project, but we can and should make contacts at this stage. Ekers suggested following up on the remote energy questions. If SKA was going to sponsor a narrowly focused industry work shop (like on remote energy), there will be a large industrial support, and an industrial participant from ZA indicated that he will be able to get funding to attend such a meeting anywhere. In the short term it would already be possible to have 2-3 people to travel around on a remote energy fact-finding tour. Schilizzi will follow up by identifying potential topics and circulate them to the ISSC. Wilkinson described a proposed cooperation between UK universities and British Aerospace. Taylor suggested to put challenging technical areas on the website (in a new “Industrial” category) to help industry. He is willing to start this. Van Ardenne said it is essential that there is a way to field questions on the web site by visitors. Butcher mentionsed that it is a lot of work, especially making sure that all information is impartially distributed. Tarter summarised that an Industry webpage is supported by the ISSC, and that van Ardenne’s suggestion needs follow-up by ISPO.

6.6. State of IPR register First entry (by CSIRO on artificial dielectric material) made. Schilizzi urged members to submit their project IP. Diamond asked if an encompassing statement is possible, eg background IP is available to SKA participants unless specifically excluded. Schilizzi confirm ed that this is included in the Statement of Intent on IP. Ekers added that the register is just meant to log where IP was generated. Peng will register some Chinese IP.

6.7. Financial statements IPO and salaries The financial statement for the period covered by the University of Calgary is not complete, unclear and could be missing some payments. A properly signed statement is necessary for a financial responsible role. Taylor will obtain a properly accounted and signed financial statement by February 2004 from the University of Calgary. The actual number of payments of the USD2000/member/a varies at the moment between 2 and 5. There is not a clear statement when the financial periods started. The MoU was not signed by all participants until June 2001; but most signed in August 2000. Brouw proposes to decide on a financial year equal to the calendar year; and to equalise all payments by requiring a total of 4 annual payments per member by 31 December 2004. Terzian moved and van Ardenne seconded this proposal. All in favour. 4. ISSC committee reports (continued, due to IEMT meeting conflict)

4.4. IEMT The IEMT met preceding the ISSC meeting, mainly to discuss the updates to the concept proposals, and to have a first go at the hybrid proposals. The IEMT discussed, and found it acceptable that during the first year of Peter Hall’s appointment as IPE, he continues to chair the IEMT. In future it will depend on the further developments in the role, and splitting of functions, of the IEMT. The IE MT is positive about the effort that went into the revision of the Science Requirements document. Although it is still evolving continuously; still has a diversity of thoughts and is still vague in some areas, the IEMT wants it on the table to use, on the timescale of a year, as the basis of a draft system definition document including costing. Butcher asked if the IEMT had looked at the independence of the requirements specifications and the concepts. He suggested cleaning the document from dependencies, or making explicit statements where dependencies are present. This is also important for the site selection process. Hall hoped to get this from the

ISSC11 8/23

ISSC12-2.2 9/23

system cost estimator, especially from the trials to isolate the common subsystems. Hall will produce an explicit identification of dependencies before the Penticton meeting. Brouw raised the explicit separation of ‘goals’ from the specifications. Schilizzi answers that that will be done, as planned, before the Penticton meeting. The IEMT will produce a commentary document on the proposed hybrid solutions, based on the matrix of hybrid space. Costing will be preliminary only until the cost calculator is more advanced. The commentary process will be interactive (Hall to Diamond). To a question by Schilizzi Hall that there is indeed missing information. One major item is costing for Aperture Arrays, which are seen by the IEMT as part of most hybrids. Hall will produce a list of missing information, and iterate it with the submitters. The hybrid proponents should provide the missing information by April 2004, in time for a review by the IEMT in May-June. The IEMT does not want to coordinate at this stage between hybrids that use the same concepts as part of their proposal (Preston question). This will be the responsibility of the hybrid proponents. Van Ardenne raised the issue of cost in relation to a shifting timeline for demonstrators. Schilizzi sees this also as raising the canonical billion dollar envelope, especially if we include 10 years of operations (which is mandatory in many budgets nowadays). HIFAR was seen as a fast track demonstrator approach. However, the onus is still on the HIFAR team to give reliable information on costing and development. The IEMT sees it as essential that an electro-magnetic simulation on the polarisation and bandwidth characteristics of cylinders is done as soon as possible. The IEMT noted that although many of the SKA concepts incorporate Aperture Array technology, real work on AA has proceeded at a slower pace than desirable. The IEMT would like to support work on the related important and critical issues. The LAR is the one proposal not needing a hybrid solution. The IEMT will further discuss this with the LAR team. In general a no-hybrid solution will be cheaper than a hybrid one; which could give rise to selection of some key requirements out of the complete set of specifications, or acceptance of lower performance in all or at selected coordinates in the requirement space. The IEMT has requested submission of demonstrator plans before 30 April 2004. Some feel that a down selection in 2007/8 could be too optimistic in view of the various demonstrators that are being discussed. The IEMT notes that:

- whatever the scale of the demonstrator, it should do some valuable science, and at least some interferometry

- cost scaling is important: independent mechanical engineering expertise is missing - A software engineering document, in interaction with the data rate study, will be

written in next few months and be available for the Penticton meeting - Requirements for past 2008 phase 2 demonstrators should be kept in mind. E.g.

guidance on area –frequency split would be welcome - The SKA should have more contact with other large projects (like EVLA, eMerlin,

ALMA). - Engineering outreach is important, and the annual report will be more explicit in giving

developments and reports. Tarter noted that there should be semi-annual reports, and Hall should be part of the Outreach committee.

Rao mentioned that although India is not submitting a hybrid solution, it will prototype 9-10 15m antennas, which could be used for the lower frequency range of the SKA in any hybrid.

ISSC11 9/23

ISSC12-2.2 10/23

Hall noted that there was some feeling in the IEMT that non-linear degradation of images due to atmosphericopacity variations as a function of time could be a concern, and should be studied or measured. In his year as IPE Hall plans to follow the director’s description of the IPE role (October 2003) in the execution of his task. This entails:

- Investigate possible merging of concepts into hybrid designs - Develop guideline proposals for final design concept - Develop a design requirements document following from the science requirements

document - Co-ordinate studies of common elements of SKA design

o E.g. integrated receivers, signal transmission, RFI mitigation, data processors, major infrastructure

- Develop common visualizations and metrics for design comparison - Oversee technical activities of site work groups

o E.g. RFI testing and engineering infrastructure Tarter noted the earlier discussed International industry contacts as an important aspect. Van Ardenne suggested a list of accomplishments to be aimed for at the end of the year. ISSC supported this proposal. 5. Review previous meetings (moved in time)

5.1. Action items previous meetings All action items of previous meetings are either finalised, or in process. Tarter reminded everybody to send copies of all documentation and presentations to Astrid Marx, the ISPO secretary.

5.2. Executive committee meetings No comments were made about the executive committee minutes. The ISSC expressed its satisfaction with the information provided. 7. ISSC issues

7.1. Proposal to adopt the Project Management plan Schilizzi, in reply to a question from van Ardenne, explained that the Management Plan will be a living document. It will be adapted each time changes have been adopted by the ISSC. Ekers moved to accept the Project Management Plan (version December 2003); Taylor seconded. All in favour.

7.2. Proposal to advise the adhering organisations to sign the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding of June 2001

Tarter explained why an addendum to the MoU was necessary. The original MoU did not cover the existence, and cost, of an ISPO. A new MoU is impossible to finalise in a short time, especially if it is hoped that it should serve for the next 5 years, leading up to the final design stage. Burke suggested adding a short description of the ISPO’s tasks. Tarter, supported by the majority, proposed to leave that to the Management Plan, which could be attached. Diamond questioned the need to specify the level of financial contribution. Rao, Mantovani and others explained that it is necessary for local support to have a maximum; the amount is too large for a local institute director. The representatives of Europe, the USA, India, Canada and China stated that they cannot sign at this stage, since they lack the appropriate finances. Australia is willing to sign, although the money has to come out of existing institute budgets. Europe

ISSC11 10/23

ISSC12-2.2 11/23

expected to have funds available in 2004Q3; the USA is putting in a proposal in a few weeks time. Burke foresaw the need for an external audit, once the budget reaches a certain level, both for our own purposes and our sponsors. ISSC supported this, and asked Schilizzi to organise it. Ekers reminded the ISSC of the current situation, where we pay USD2000/member/a supporting the necessary administrative functions of the ISSC as agreed in the MoU, and are invoiced by ASTRON through a separate agreement with ASTRON, as discussed at the Berkeley ISSC meeting, for the Director’s salary. Boyle suggested discussing the budget before deciding on the MoU addendum and the payment issue. Proposal accepted. (see at end 7.3). Meeting adjourned for the day.

7.3. Proposal to adopt the long-term budget proposal 2004-2009 Schilizzi explained that the proposed budget was detailed and distributed, as agreed, after the Geraldton meeting to enable the members to discuss them in their organisations, and come prepared to vote on it. The individual line items are to enable external support:

• Travel for committees: to allow non-members to be invited • Equipment and Software: e.g. special MatLab modules • Consultants and travel: e.g. for legal advice • SKA animation: need a well constructed animation (like fly-bys) to show in our

presentations • General expenses: e.g. transport displays; brochures

Schilizzi, explained in reply to questions, that the full cost of the RFI measurement equipment could not have been included yet (Tarter); that he expected the consultant budget, although difficult to estimate, to be adequate at this level of about 1 my (Tarter); that maybe animation could be better produced in 2008 (after concept selection), rather than in 2006 (IAU GA) (Taylor). Wilkinson foresaw additional coordinating costs due to the probably two major demonstrators (EU and US) being proposed. Schilizzi saw all expenditures by the ISPO as coordinating expenses. He explained that with these proposals at about 10M€/a, the budget level of about 500k€ (5%) seems about right. The European Union allows 7% for coordinating management of research projects. Cordes raised the possibility of lowering the Equipment and Software budget-line by some creative funding, also in connection with the possible difficulties attached to moving cash internationally. Van Ardenne, Hall and Schilizzi were more inclined to find the level a lower estimate. Cordes would like to see the proposal fleshed out for local budgetary purposes, while Taylor explained that the scale of money is impossible for Canada without an extended document. Schilizzi promised some documentation in the short term. Butcher supported the reasonable level (maybe a bit low) of activities. If we are a serious project, we have to make sure coordinating efforts agree with the activities going on everywhere. He proposed to make a presentation showing all the activities in all the participating countries: bureaucrats love it. Preston strongly supported Butcher, and would like to see the budget raised by a few hundred thousand dollars. Schilizzi has a summary of the activities everywhere, and will produce a more complete version for Penticton. Butcher and Terzian raised the in-kind vs. cash question, with options for about 1/3 in kind. Schilizzi pointed out the need for cash: not everything can be done in-kind; and the difficulty of using proper comparison between in-kind contribution. Schilizzi was asked to produce a discussion document on this issue. Wilkinson and Zensus expressed the European mixed feelings about having a Project Scientist. Could be a part-time in-kind position in the longer term. Van Ardenne (pointing out how

ISSC11 11/23

ISSC12-2.2 12/23

essential in ALMA), Tarter (we need proper marketing of our science vis-à-vis our colleagues), Schilizzi (need a co-located leader of the necessary Science WG), Boyle (we are in the project for the long-term, managing short-term people and budgets lacks a vision), Taylor w4ere all in strong support of a Project Scientist. Brouw and Schilizzi pointed out that in-kind contributions of any kind should be part of the budgets. Ekers and van Ardenne supported this, and would like to see a complete overview, including all in kind contributions (e.g. management overhead ASTRON for ISPO). Tarter proposed to adopt the proposed long-term budget, and hence confirming it contains the right items, at the right level, to be reviewed annually. Butcher moved to accept the long-term expenditure plan as the appropriate goal for the ISPO; Terzian seconded; all were in favour.

7.2. Proposal to advise the adhering organisations to sign the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding of June 2001 (continued)

Tarter commented that after accepting the long-term budget, we have to find the dollars. At the minimum we have to find the money to fulfil our existing obligations. This commitment amounts to USD10333/member/a. Brouw proposed to drop the addendum to the MoU, and use the existing clause in the MoU, which allows reviewing the annual contribution to the secretariat. The only consequence at this stage is that the ISPO is not officially recognised. Butcher moved to set the maximum contribution to the ISSC per member for the year 2004 to USD 10333. Taylor seconded. All are in favour.

7.4. Proposal to adopt the budget for the calendar year 2004 retro-actively after signing of MoU addendum

Not relevant after decision on 7.2.

7.5. Proposal to accept financial limit 2005 Not relevant after decision on 7.2.

7.6. ISSC long-term roster dates The majority of the replies to the director’s questionnaire, and about half of the members indicated that they did not want to change the January/July scheme. With no mandate for change, Tarter proposed to look at the dates one at a time, with already a meeting planned in October 2005, and an extra meeting possibly in the first half of 2006 for the site selection. Preston raised the option of having ISSC teleconferences on focussed issues (budgetary and similar items) between representatives of the partners between the semi-annual ISSC meetings. Wilkinson, Boyle and Terzian support the idea: be prepared rather than have the long discussions in meeting. Kellermann and Ekers point out that the executive exists, is representative and has monthly teleconferences. Preston states that he is very pleased with the XC as it runs, but sees it not as a substitute for the ISSC teleconferences. Ekers stated that one possible problem with the existing XC is the fact that the “other” group (as opposed to the European and American) is not a structured consortium. He could have been more pro-active in organising this group. Schilizzi was asked to review the necessity of focussed ISSC telecons in addition to the monthly XC meetings. 8. Review of national/regional developments, demonstrators and financing In view of the recent description in the December 2003 SKA newsletter of the various national and regional projects, Tarter suggests to limit the discussion to new, recent developments

ISSC11 12/23

ISSC12-2.2 13/23

8.1. China 8.2. India 8.3. Australia 8.4. Canada 8.5. Europe

Butcher: ASTRON has hired a full-time SKA Project Manager (Parbhu Patel), who will also work part of his time for the EU SKA Consortium. Wilkinson noted that the UK has founded its own UK SKA Consortium, with plans for a University/Industry consortium firming up. Activities are slowly ramping up in the UK

8.6. USA The US technical development proposal will be submitted shortly. Pending issues are:

• Submission of a 5-year comprehensive technology development proposal to the U.S. National Science Foundation in February 2004

• Compliance with the international ISSC guidelines and timetable for the development of the SKA design and siting

• Agreement to the proposal by the U.S. National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center to manage the Technology Development Program

8.7. Japan

Recent developments in Japan include: - ISAS (space agency) was merged with NASDA, to form JAXA. It will have a

combined budget cut of about 10% - VSOP2 proposal was submitted. ISAS will select one project out of the 2 science

projects (of which VSOP2 is one) and 2 engineering projects submitted (VSOP was an engineering project) in the next few months. If selected, the project has to submit a detailed budget. The procedure after that is still unclear

- SKA demonstrators would already be a great help for VSOP2 (a 5% SKA array will already give 22% of full SKA/VSOP2 sensitivity)

- ALMA participation is approved for 25.6 G¥ (about 200M€) over 10 years - NAOJ is going to be an agency. It is unclear how it will be organised, but it should in

principle be less bureaucracy Japan would be ready to join the SKA/ISSC as a partner, with the right representation. Another possibility would be to have an SKA-VSOP MoU about cooperation. Tarter asked what science area would be opened by the SKA-VSOP2 cooperation. Inoue mentioned, among others, the 50 times improvement in sensitivity for accretion disk observations at 2 cm as compared to the VLBA. Tarter suggested having a close look at the Key Projects vis-à-vis the VSOP2 possibilities. Preston noted the time-scale differences between the projects. Kellermann pointed to the demonstrator time-scales, which are comparable to the VSOP2 time-scale. Brouw would prefer to see Japan as a full partner in the SKA project, a view supported by Inoue. In view of the new MoU discussion, it was suggested to keep Inoue informed about the MoU developments, and have a proposal by Inoue and Schilizzi at the Penticton ISSC meeting.

ISSC11 13/23

ISSC12-2.2 14/23

9. Project Management issues

9.1. Organisation of international project office The basis of the organisation of the ISPO will be the diagram on page 15 of the Management Plan:

Operations Working Group

Outreach Committee

International SKA Steering Committee

Executive Committee

International Science Advisory

Committee

International Engineering

Advisory Committee

SKA Project Office

Engineering Working Group

Site Evaluation Working Group

Simulations Working Group

Science Working Group

International Collaboration Working Group

Industrial Liaison Committee

International Site Selection Advisory

Committee

Schilizzi will prepare a detailed implementation plan by Penticton, based on this diagram. Taylor commented that the budget for the cost for the new WGs in the ISPO is low. Schilizzi explained that it is the intention that they will continue to be supported by the WG’s member institutes, as they are now. The situation is different for the Advisory Committees, which will have to be addressed in 2005/6. Burke suggested having a Finance Committee in this plan already. Tarter states that it is too early: there needs discussion before that. Brouw suggested that the Finance Committee should be part of the MoU discussion. Van Ardenne, supported by Butcher, said that some financial oversight committee is essential with the increasing expenditure and the pitfalls of international tendering and contracts. It was decided that Schilizzi will come with a proposal for financial accountability in Penticton, and will discuss the proposal for a Finance Committee as mentioned in the Management Plan.

9.2. Formal status of national/regional demonstrators within the international SKA project (ATA, CLAR, FAST, LOFAR)

The ATA (Tarter) finished its technology development programme on 1 January 2004 after 11.5 M$. The current proposal is to start building the ATA32, with a correlator, 3 beams, 100 MHz bandwidth and the existing SETI processor which is now in Arecibo. This week 3 cryogenic receivers will be installed on the existing 3 dishes. The ATA32 will be operational in September 2004, followed by the ATA206 in 2006, and, after an additional 15M$ has been raised, the ATA350 in 2007/8. For the US demonstrator an additional antenna is planned, with manpower, to test RFI suppression; receivers etc.

ISSC11 14/23

ISSC12-2.2 15/23

Ekers raised the question ‘what can be learned from the effective doubling of the cost of the project’. Tarter will provide a document in Penticton. Tarter (to Ekers) expects the wide-band feed to be proposed for the IP register.

The LOFAR Consortium (Butcher) of ASTRON, MIT/Haystack and NRL ended formally on 31 December 2003. LOFAR is seen by NL as path finder:

• role of low frequency science for SKA

– are transients important? – is Epoch of Re-ionization a strong driver?

• technology development – design of Aperture Array ‘shared aperture multi-telescope’ – transient buffer, RFI suppression – distributed, on-line Science Operations Centres

• industrial involvement – formal procurement of R&D – Lucent Technologies: 160Gb/s/DWDM colour x 100 colours – IBM: streaming supercomputing with BlueGene architecture

The project development:

• PDR in June/Oct 2003: M€ 14 expended • Dutch funding end 2003: M€ 52 for technology

• funding must be matched by ‘partners’ interested in the technology – 18 member national consortium: in negotiation

• goal is economic positioning w.r.t. ‘adaptive sensor networks’ – RF, seismic, infra-sound, wind-energy sensors

• prototyping of a full station in progress • 100 low frequency antennas in field, making all-sky videos • end 2004, expect 2 beam web-based system on-line (for play) • issues: calibration, RFI, adaptive re-allocation of resources

• CDR start in mid-2004, complete mid-2005 • procurement start mid-2004, end mid-2006

Operational goals:

• Netherlands – sensor network research infrastructure

• Europe – signal processing demonstrator for FP6 SKA Design Study – Gbit/sec to EVN institutes in 2004/5: possible SOCs

• Australia – MoU regarding siting in Australia – funding expected but not available

Lessons learned:

• Siting – decided late, causing political problems

• Financing – decoupled phasing in time – boundary conditions cause confusion

ISSC11 15/23

ISSC12-2.2 16/23

• Industrial involvement – R&D procurement can be interesting – complex legal aspects – formal (WTO) procedures required – 2 year timescale

Butcher answered questions. Industry gets in general up to speed in 6-9 months, while learning each other’s vocabulary (Schilizzi). Van Ardenne added that no critical items should be developed by industry. In 2004 a 2-beam system will be in place (Kellermann) with a few 100m elements, coupled to a cluster for interferometric tests, and a system available on the web. The timeline is still on target for first light of a scientific viable system in 2006 (Tarter, Terzian), with a full system in 2008 at a cost of about 100M€ for an all-beam system with RFI suppression. The 52M€ can only pay for the infrastructural R&D and construction (Kellermann), postdocs and calibration were e.g. part of the missing 21M€. Building a full LOFAR will be about 70M€, wherever it is built. Ekers remarked that de-scoping due to lack of funds will need renewed discussions about SKA prototyping as part of the LOFAR program. Van Ardenne noted that LOFAR is moving into a certain direction, separate from SKA: so we need to be careful about such discussions linking LOFAR and SKA. However, international cooperation could make a big difference. In Australia LOFAR and SKA are heavily coupled for scientific, practical and pragmatic reasons. As a consequence of building LOFAR in The Netherlands, Radio Quiet Zones are now more difficult to sell: Why need one if you can build an instrument even in densely populated Europe? Ekers asked about IP for the IP register. Van Ardenne has started the process, but is dependent on some industrial contacts as well. Schilizzi noted that all that is necessary and sufficient is to state there is IP, and a contact address. Lazio clarified that the NRL proto-type LOFAR station (at least the first) has to go to the VLA. It will have 100-200 antennas, and be 10-20% of total area. Ekers proposed to invite Joe Salah to Penticton, to discuss the LOFAR site selection procedure as a lesson for the SKA. Idea was supported.

The Canadian SKA consortium is preparing a CLAR proposal (Taylor) for an SKA demonstrator/pathfinder of 16.5MCAD in 2003/4-2009/10 at a cost (without actuators) of 100-140 CAD/m2. It will have Vivaldi arrays as focal plane array, and be especially for surveys. The CLA can be built outside Canada (e.g. at the selected SKA site.

The concept review in 2005 (Kellermann) will have a large impact on Canadian plans: it will be impossible to build anything on that timescale. Ekers noted that the sensitivity necessary to go to z=2 is according to Australian calculations four times higher than proposed here. Tarter noted that sensitivity calculations vary too much at the moment and that differences should be resolved. Taylor and Boyle will make calculations available, and will compare them. Tarter will discuss with Chris Carilli a follow-up on sensitivity issue, to ensure a unified view in Berlin and in Science case.

KARST was one of the plans discussed in the long-term planning committee that met in August 2003. The plan (in 5y intervals) is for 2006-2020, and has 3G€ for the 15y proposed. The first version has FAST included. A technological demonstrator (a 30m scale model) will be built to assemble the key technologies: cable mesh; feed support; receivers. A budget of 1M€, with 4MCYN available from August 2002 from the Chinese Academy of Sciences; 3MCYN from January 2005 from the NSFC, and the rest from the Ministry of Science and Technology.

ISSC11 16/23

ISSC12-2.2 17/23

Butcher noted that a broadband connection Amsterdam-Moscow-Beijing-Japan-USA is being considered, with FAST as one of the user institutes. Peng has not been asked about that.

9.3. Adoption of “Key Science Projects” Kellermann moves, seconded by Butcher, to accept the Key Science Projects recommendations as the base for further discussions, bearing in mind the earlier proposals to add “Discovery Science” as a formal part (see 4.1). All in favour

9.4. Discussion of the SKA Science Requirements recommendation and adoption of a draft version of the SKA Science Requirements

Tarter expressed appreciation to Dayton Jones for his work as editor of the document, especially for the extra background information provided. Ekers, noting that we have now a set of “Key Science Proposals”, expressed the need for further discussions. Schilizzi refered to earlier discussions about the process, and asked if a formal adoption is necessary. Maybe a White Paper is sufficient. Hall and Terzian preferred a formal adoption: it is needed for site and concept down selection. Boyle stressed the need for a strict version control process, with regular updates. Hall passed on the wish of the IEMT to see the “why” added to the requirements, to better estimate their importance. Several members express the need to have more non-linear details (e.g. dynamic range needed as a function of frequency), and note the earlier comments (see 4.1) about concept dependency and clearer separation of specifications and goals. Preston and Butcher propose to have one more, quick round before publishing a version. Schilizzi summarised by proposing to ask ISSC and IEMT members for email comments before mid-February. Dayton and Schilizzi to edit, taking into account ISSC comments, with time for redress (Preston), and publishing in early March, and thereafter ask for external comments (using the ISPO email list). All agreed. Feedback on process and external comments will be given in Penticton.

9.5. Site selection RFP guidelines Terzian re-iterated the proposed process. An RFP for SKA siting will be issued following the Penticton meeting. The SESC foresees a document of about 10 pages. It will consist of an introduction explaining the procedures, process and giving an overview of the selection criteria and their importance; followed by detailed explanations of the selection criteria. The Science Requirements will be attached as background. First part drafts will be prepared by the SESC members by 1 March, followed by internal SESC discussions and an initial draft on 15 March. A complete final draft will be submitted to the ISSC in Penticton. Following a comment by Tarter Terzian proposed to ask legal advice on the final draft, possibly from the Cornell legal department, who have experience with international RFP. The ISPO will get legal advice before submitting the RFP proposal to the ISSC. A long discussion followed, mainly on the extent to which the detailed criteria should be made public, and should remain the same during the whole process. Comments were made, and noted, on the necessity to have for each selection criteria a minimum threshold below which a site will not be selected. The LOFAR site selection (Butcher) teaches us that probably a number of sites will end up almost equal, and that technical and political factors will ultimately play a role. This should be made clear. Boyle and others point out that staying objective and quantitative as long as

ISSC11 17/23

ISSC12-2.2 18/23

possible; and having an independent grading process will be essential to obtain broad support for the selection process. Tarter summarised the consensus as: It is advantageous for all concerned to publish selection criteria, with some indication of their importance in the selection process. The committee advising the ISSC should be independent and unbiased. It should not reveal all the detailed rules, although the process should be transparent and the committee should be accountable. The final decision will be with the ISSC.

9.6 RFI monitoring programme At the request of the ISSC at its Geraldton meeting, the SESC requested proposals from a number of institutes for independent RFI monitoring equipment and a measurement procedure. Only ASTRON submitted a detailed and costed proposal. The SESC’s RFI WG checked the proposal, and discussed it with the SKA director and the chair of the IEMT. All reported that the proposal was professional, and ASTRON was very responsive to comments and questions. The only comment was that maybe costing was underestimated. Terzian added that some of the equipment in the budget could be on-loan from ASTRON or other groups, lowering the cost further. Furthermore, the actual execution cost of the measurements would depend on local salaries. The 60k€ was only a nominal amount. Butcher stated that ASTRON is willing to finance the project in advance, accepting the risk attach to that decision. Terzian, on behalf of the SESC recommended that the ISPO enters into a contract with ASTRON based on the submission. Ekers questioned the actual need for a concerted international effort, assuming that if you used identical equipment to specs at the different sites, you should get equal weight answers. Schilizzi disagreed, and pointed to LOFAR RFI test results; Hall, an initial sceptic, agrees that it is the only objective way for a billion dollar project. Kellermann, agreeing with Ekers, called it an overreaction. Preston asked about timelines. Terzian answered that if the contract is not further postponed, depending on the ultimate number of sites to validate (up to 6 possible), measurements could be finished before the end of 2005. Jonas expressed his concern that without adequate definition and execution of follow-up measurements the actual cross-validation snapshot measurements are of no or limited value, with precision errors of 5-10 dB. Although these errors are at first sight acceptable, Jonas was asked to discuss his concerns and solutions with the ISPO. Schilizzi and Butcher saw the project being run by the ISPO, with a contract with ASTRON. The project will be assisted by a committee with a member from each site, to discuss procedures, order of measurement, special requirements, local contact etc. Ekers asked if the legal aspect of obtaining permits to measure electro-magnetic radiation in sovereign countries has been looked into. Peng had contacted the Chinese authorities, who have no problem with granting such permits. None of the other regions have looked into it. Diamond moved to accept the ASTRON RFI monitoring proposal and that ISPO and ASTRON enter into a contract. Boyle seconded. Kellermann abstained, all others in favour.

9.7. Timeline for site selection Discussed earlier (see 4.2). Expect final selection by ISSC in 2006Q1.

9.8. Timeline for design concept down selection The original timeline: 2004-2007 Demonstrator development 2006 Shortlist technical designs

ISSC11 18/23

ISSC12-2.2 19/23

2008 Selection of technical design Start of 5% demonstrator

2009 Submit funding proposal full array 2012 Start building 2020 Complete construction Schilizzi proposed to have a major review in 2006, instead of a shortlist procedure. Butcher wanted to see industrial involvement in the review process (Wilkinson announces that the EU FP6 SKA proposal will have industrial involvement in its mid-term review). Ekers supported this: going COTS is the only way to be able to build a SKA, which means industrial involvement in early stage. Schilizzi will consider industrial participation Tarter reminded the meeting that the short listing was meant to allow the project to focus on a smaller number of concepts. With the pathfinders there is already a basis for risk that no focussing will take place. She proposed, with Preston and Terzian, to leave as is. Butcher also suggested that it is politically advantageous to involve governments at an early stage in the down-selection/review process. Ekers reminded the ISSC that the Key Science Projects should play an, maybe the, important role in the review and selection process. Tarter summarised the consensus for a major review in 2006, involving government (funding agencies) and industry, which could result in a selection maybe. Schilizzi will come with a more detailed plan in Penticton. Van Ardenne missed the cost in the process; and the extensive effort going into the demonstrators. Wilkinson reminded the ISSC that the most challenging, and part of most hybrids, concept: the Aperture Array will not be fully functional in 2006. Peng would like to see the review/selection postponed till 2007. Schilizzi mentioned that the major selection criteria are:

• captures significant fraction and most important of the Key Science Projects • has demonstrated engineering capabilities • is compatible with site choice • is within the nominal cost envelope

Butcher moved that a major external review with government and industry input and involvement will be held in 2006, whose outcome could act as a start of the down-selection process. Terzian seconded; all in favour.

9.9. Scale and funding phase 2 demonstrator Schilizzi proposed to start an email discussion, details to be determined in XC. Cordes would like to see initial action before Penticton, to enable fund raising to start as early as possible.

10. Future Meetings 10.1. OECD Global Science Forum #2, 5-6 April Washington, USA 10.2. Symposium, Berlin, May 2004

A second call has been sent. About half of the possible 220 attendee positions have been filled. SKA representation is essential.

10.3. SKA2004 and ISSC meeting, Penticton, Canada, July 2004 Kellermann proposed to appoint a Scientific Organising Committee. ISSC appointed Cordes (spokes person, US); Steve Rawlings (ISAC, EU), Boyle (others), Taylor (contact LOC). The Chairs of the WGs were asked to let the SKA2004 organisers know what slots they need.

ISSC11 19/23

ISSC12-2.2 20/23

10.4. ISSC meeting New Mexico, January 2005

Terzian re-iterated the idea to have the meeting in Albuquerque. Arriving Wednesday, visit site on Thursday, and have ISSC on Friday/Saturday. All of February and the first two weeks of March are possible (in addition to the early January date). Ekers preferred a Socorro venue, since the meeting is part of a site visit cycle. Kellermann stated that NRAO would be pleased to host the 2006 meeting, and will discuss it within the USSKA. Butcher raised the problem that could occur with visas and the new passport rules that will come into effect towards the end of 2004, and suggests a meeting in China first. China is willing to invite. Terzian moved to postpone accepting the invitation to NM for a year, and to accept an invitation for a meeting early 2005 in China. Butcher seconded. All are in favour.

10.5. SKA2005 and ISSC meeting, Pune, October 2005

11. Any other business 11.1. Proposal to move South African membership from Europe to the ‘others’ group; and to

consider the office bearers as supernumerary Kellermann moved, van Ardenne seconded a motion to ask the MoU committee (as an obvious successor to the membership committee) to look into this, and report in Geraldton, and to have ZA kept informed on MoU discussion progress (as well as Japan).

11.2. Preparation for election of office bearers in ISSC12 Kellermann moved, van Ardenne seconded a motion to install a nominating committee, to report at Penticton, consisting of Ekers (organiser), Wilkinson and Terzian. 12. Adjourn At 17:02 Tarter closed the meeting, after having expressed her thanks to the local organisers for their welcome and support. wnb040216

ISSC11 20/23

ISSC12-2.2 21/23

Actions:

11.1. Schilizzi to ensure that all web references and documents like the Project Management Plan refer to “ISPO”, “IEMT” and “Key Science Projects”, instead of IPO, EMT and Level-0.

11.2. Schilizzi to coordinate with ISAC to get Executive summary and the Key Science Projects Chapters of the revised Science case available at the Berlin meeting in May 2004.

11.3. Schilizzi to discuss with ISAC the best way to compare SKA’s discovery space with that of other large facilities.

11.4. Wilkinson to organise a teleconference (and a possible follow-on meeting) about the way “Discovery Science” should be incorporate in the Science Case before the end of February 2004.

11.5. Schilizzi, in cooperation with Terzian, to ensure that proper legal advice has been obtained before the site RFP will be finalised.

11.6. Schilizzi to produce the SKA newsletter twice a year; one month before each ISSC meeting.

11.7. Schilizzi to follow-up on suggestion to have one or more narrowly focused industrial workshops, and to liaise with Ekers about funding.

11.8. Taylor to create a first pass for an Industry part of the SKA website 11.9. Schilizzi to create a comment/question possibility for at least the Industrial branch of the

SKA website. 11.10. Schilizzi to stay aware of international scientific conferences that should have an SKA

discussion as part of their scientific programme, and organise attendance and talks when necessary.

11.11. Boyle and Schilizzi to implement the decision to approach the OECD Science Ministers conference on the question of the possibility of creating an OECD international project support office.

11.12. Taylor to provide by February 2004 a properly accounted and signed financial statement from the University of Calgary.

11.13. Schilizzi to provide to ISSC members within 3 weeks a fleshed out budget proposal for local usage

11.14. Schilizzi to provide an overview of the expenditures and activities in all participating countries

11.15. Schilizzi to provide a discussion paper on the proper calculation of in-kind contributions for Penticton.

11.16. Schilizzi to provide a complete budget, including possibly hidden in-kind contributions 11.17. Hall to provide for the Penticton meeting explicit identifications of concept related

specifications in the Science Requirements document 11.18. Schilizzi to ensure that the Science Requirements document separates specifications and

goals in a more transparent way. 11.19. Hall to produce a list of missing information from the hybrid proposals and the individual

concepts, and to iterate with the proposers to enable costing of hybrids. 11.20. Schilizzi to make Hall a member of the Outreach Committee. 11.21. Hall to provide a list of aimed for accomplishments as IPE after the first year. 11.22. Ekers to provide web address of the OECD GSF presentations 11.23. ALL to send copies of documents and presentations to the ISPO secretary Astrid Marx 11.24. Schilizzi to organise external audits of the financial statements at the end of each year. 11.25. Tarter, after consultation with Rao and Peng, to send letters to Chinese and Indian

authorities stating the decision about the annual contribution level for 2004. 11.26. Schilizzi to send an itemised invoice to the ISSC members, stating payment history and

invoicing up till ultimo 2004.

ISSC11 21/23

ISSC12-2.2 22/23

11.27. Schilizzi to review the necessity of another regular “business” meeting in addition to the monthly teleconferences of the XC.

11.28. Schilizzi to keep Inoue informed about the MoU committee developments 11.29. Schilizzi and Inoue to have a proposal for Japan’s ISSC status for Penticton meeting 11.30. Schilizzi to prepare a detailed implementation plan for the ISPO structure in 2005 in

Penticton. 11.31. Schilizzi to prepare a proposal for financial accountability of the ISPO for Penticton 11.32. Schilizzi to discuss the Finance Committee as foreseen in the Management Plan within

the MoU committee, and report in Penticton 11.33. Tarter to provide for Penticton a document on the reasons for under-budgeting ATA 11.34. ALL reminded of the need to register IP developed for or related to the SKA

developments 11.35. Brouw to invite Joe Salah for discussion of site-selection experiences with LOFAR in

Penticton 11.36. Taylor and Boyle to compare and discuss sensitivity calculations for CLAR and HIFAR,

and communicate the result to the ISSC 11.37. Tarter to discuss with Carilli the issue of having unified sensitivity calculations in the

science case 11.38. Schilizzi to ask ISSC and IEMT members for email comments on Science Requirements

before mid-February 2004 11.39. Dayton and Schilizzi to edit the Science Requirements, taking into account ISSC

discussion, with time for redress and publishing in early March 11.40. Jonas to discuss RFI monitoring cross-validation concerns with SESC and ISPO 11.41. Schilizzi to look into the legal aspects of importing and using ‘foreign’ RFI measurement

equipment 11.42. Terzian and Schilizzi to organise a legal review of the site RFP 11.43. Schilizzi to provide a detailed plan for a major technical review, cf selection in 2006. 11.44. Schilizzi, after discussion in XC, to start email discussion about Phase 2 demonstrator

scale and funding 11.45. Schilizzi to ask chairs of the ISSC Committees to let the LOC know there need for slots at

SKA2004 11.46. Ekers to organise report by nominating committee (with Wilkinson, Terzian) for new

Chair and Vice-chair in Penticton

ISSC11 22/23

ISSC12-2.2 23/23

Decisions:

11.1. Ron Ekers was appointed Member-at-Large for a 2 year term from 2004-01-01 – 2005-12-31

11.2. The International Project Office (IPO) will be renamed the International SKA

Project Office (ISPO); the Engineering Management Team (EMT/IEMT) will be known as the International Engineering Management Team (IEMT); Level 0 Science will be renamed Key Science Projects

11.3. The siting RFP will be sent out after the Penticton ISSC meeting 11.4. The Newsletter will be published twice-yearly, about 1 month before the ISSC

meetings and act as report to ISSC. 11.5. The OECD will be asked to look into the possibility of creating a generic

international project office 11.6. The SKA financial year is the same as the calendar year. 11.7. A list of aimed-for accomplishments will be produced by the IPE 11.8. The International Project Management Plan was adopted. 11.9. The long term expenditure plan for the International SKA Project Office was

adopted as the appropriate goal 11.10. The maximum contribution to the ISPO in 2004 has been set at USD10333 per

ISSC member. 11.11. No change in the systematics of the ISSC meeting dates (January/July each year)

will occur. Actual dates will be looked into for each occasion 11.12. The Key Science Projects proposed by the ISAC have been adopted as base for

further discussions 11.13. The ASTRON RFI monitoring proposal for the candidate sites was accepted. The

central validation will occur at only one site per country. 11.14. A major external review, including government and industry input, of the technical

design concepts will be held in 2006. 11.15. The ISSC13 meeting in early 2005 will be held in China, and ISSC15 in early 2006

in the USA (New Mexico).

ISSC11 23/23