IASC NAG meeting 2021
Date:
Location:January 26, 2021
OnlineMeeting programme••••••

13:00 – 13:10: Welcome
13:10 – 13:40: Presentation Koji Fujita (Nagoya University, Japan) - Physically based
summer temperature reconstruction from melt layers in ice cores
13:40 – 14:10: Presentation Ruth Mottram (Danish Meteorological Institute, Denmark) Forecasting future declines: High resolution SMB for Arctic glaciers
14:10 – 14:40: Presentation Shawn Marshall (University of Calgary, Canada) - Thetransition to temperate firn and the development of a deep firn aquifer at KaskawulshGlacier, St. Elias Mountains, Yukon
14:40 – 15:00: Coffee break
15:00 – 16:00: Open forum

Open Forum Minutes (summary)
Led by Ward van Pelt, note takers: Natalija Nikolic, Lauren Samo and Wesley Van Wychen
Synthesized meeting notes:
Meeting Format
Hybrid light

Hybrid medium

For comments

Against comments

Protects publishing interests

Travel footprint

Support for physical meetings
over online meetings

Budget costs

Works well for small groups

Potential connectivity issues

Increases amount of potential
participants

Concerns for showing preliminary
results to larger audience

Cheaper for budgets

Difficult to present posters

Online networking sessions, likebreakout roomsHybrid plus

Reduces travelling footprint

Potential connectivity issues

Easier to attend

Concerns about facilitating
communication with a larger
participant base

Key comments and outtakes from Meeting Format discussion● Connectivity (bandwidth, internet) and technology issues of host location● Travel footprint of physical meetings and easier accessibility for virtual format● Difficulty with virtual and physical poster sessions of hybrid plus
● Hybrid light is better to preserve preliminary results for publication interests that should
not be shared with entire community● In person benefit of networking OR option for virtual networking sessions (createsrelationships between early career researchers and established researchers)● Majority of people prefer hybrid medium option
Key comments and outtakes from List of National Contacts discussion● Need to fill gaps for Italy, India, Portugal, South Korea, Czech Republic● Paco suggests that some countries are focussed more on other working groups (Portugal
large focus on permafrost, South Korea is active in many fields)● Olaf suggests contacting Kyle Megunte(?) from italy, asking to help us put into contact
with potential contacts
Key comments and outtakes from Website discussion● Website should be checked for typos and mobile compatibility● Many agree that the website could be used as a repository for information (current andhistorical) rather than something that should be updated and maintained. Analytics ofusers might be useful for this decision.
● Data section hasn’t been updated since 2003, perhaps it could be changed to links toupdated databases instead of posting data to it● Publications, project documents, and proposals should have a dedicated space so thatthey do not get lost. Also, instead of posting funding applications we should be posting
project information and received funding.
○ Glacoidyn and Magics section can be replaced with something else.
● Concern about adding a News section as it must be maintained, suggested that there
can be updates section including a social media feed instead.
● Consolidate the meetings and workshop pages● 4 people confirmed they use the website only for checking workshop/meetinginformation

Open Forum (full notes)
Part one – Meeting format:● 3 Hybrid meeting ideas:○ Light – physical meeting with recorded presentations available after themeetings○ Medium – physical meeting with live stream available○ Plus – physical, live stream, virtual participation as well
● Comments by attendees○ Andreas: We might have an issue, the locations don’t always have the strongest
internet connection, something to consider when discussing which kind of
meeting to plan, geat opportunity though○ Meetings in person usually have technological issues (ie set up), vs individualzoom, everyone seems to have it working now○ Hester: Bethel, Maine IASC NAG, used medium hybrid, which worked well forsmall groups○ Jack Kohler: Travelling footprint + tougher budget. There probably won’t be an
immediate return to normal for at least a year, so virtual meetings are a lot more
attractive, lots of merit○ Jack Kohler: Curtail travel: impossible to make it to all meetings, particularly
further away.
○ Ward: didn’t add only digital because there isn’t much support for digitalizationof this meeting, hybrid is the most digital it will probably get, recordings of thisare not demanding and are allowed, so recording and uploading later doesnt isnt
affected by internet, but then others wouldn’t be able to participate if they are
not there, difficult to find out if you have the right bandwidth for this○ Virtual is not technologically demanding for individuals on zoom/teams, but
livestream depends on location, organization may not have required bandwidth○ Dariusz: We need to be careful because we are showing prelim results thatshould only be available to our community, thinks we should go for light version
and only share those who consent to having theirs shared○ Olaf: Better to not return to “old normal” and travel all over. Conferences should
all now have virtual option, everyone should have the opportunity to join
remotely if they prefer to join that way for a variety of reasons, we should be
able to accommodate all of these options, including joining remotely, hybrid
increases the number of participants, strongly arguing for hybrids as it may becost-friendly for people

○ Paco: Supports the idea like Olaf, allow people to have the possibility toparticipate online is a good idea, but having too many people in the meeting
makes it harder to interact with others. A larger format would make things moredifficult, wants hybrid medium, would allow people to have the same
possibilities, would be more difficult for the posters though because you don’t
have the socialization, instead it would be breakout rooms which wouldn’t be as
successful○ Ruth: Agrees with Paco. Hybrid is important but difficult for both online andphysical poster sections but having a virtual option is very important. Benefit forthese smaller meetings of in person is for early career researchers to network,
this should be taken into consideration. Option to have online networking
sections○ Jack: Enforced breakout rooms of Nordic Branch meeting was a great
opportunity (randomly placed in breakout room with other people), posters are
difficult and don’t work well in online experience, really likes randomly assigned
breakout rooms for older and early career researchers● Post poll
○ Needs to be discussed with the location if live streaming is a possibility○ Jack: a zoom meeting is straight forward, doesn’t affect other people if your own
internet sucks, but if you get into a venue a meeting can get thwarted throughproblems with the setup, hard for organizers to do things properly and not leavepeople out by accident○ Ward: good to introduce it so that we can figure it out and find a way to make itwork, something to discuss with Marius in Szczyrk and the Hotel people● Poll results
Meeting style

Results (%)

Physical7

Hybrid Light

10

Hybrid Medium

71

Hybrid Plus

12

Other0Part two - List of National Contacts:● Need to fill gaps for Italy, India, Portugal, South Korea, Czech Republic● Ward suggests we leave the list alone, but try to fill the gaps that we still have
● Is there anyone from the missing countries that would be the national contact?
○ Olaf suggests contacting Kyle Megunte(?) From italy, asking to help us put into
contact with potential contacts○ Keep as it is, maybe more thoroughly next year in person○ Francisco: people may not be interested because they are interested in otherthings, like permafrost, we can advertise but might not be possible, Portugal andCzech may not have potential candidates, India focus more on antarctic
Part three – Website● Questions: Is it outdated? Room for improvement? Necessary to keep data? Glaciodynand Magics, removed or replaced?
● Comments from attendees○ Ward: outdated, room for improvement, skeptical about keeping the Datasection the way it is .. there is no unique data and only goes up to 2003, norecent data, all of it is available elsewhere, data section is not necessaryanymore○ Ward: publications now includes extended abstracts as per last year’s consensus,
we have funding for ISBN numbers (?), should we change key publications
format? Glacoidyn and Magics could be removed or replaced with somethingelse○ Francisco: clarification about publications, there are a few, but some mention
that they are developed within IASC, only those papers were included on thepublications list, this is good to keep this way for funding purposes as a network,
keep track of papers that explicitly mention it○ Carleen: before this website, we thought it would be better if website washosted by IASC, then we already had the discussion of what should and shouldn’t
be on the website, at the time we wanted to put the data there and we had theintention to update the data but that never happened○ Ward: poll about the current status of the website■ Layout and content rated ⅘, means there is room for improvement○ Ward’s personal suggestions: Data section isn’t helpful anymore due to them
being published elsewhere, no motivation to keep the section anymore - add a

news section about funding or meeting dates, can be posted there and then it isclear what the newest information is - fix typos - unclear about what to do withthe key publications and project documents and proposals (maybe project
documents and proposals can be removed)○ Jon: key publications are outdated and random, Data section can be a list of links
to running updated databases○ Carleen: hard to keep news section update, maybe it shouldn't be called news
and add newest information on the front page instead because news has
different expectations for maintenance○ Carleen: projects documents and proposals is a nice way of archiving thisinformation○ Ward: good to keep it somewhere maybe if it becomes relevant again, maybe it
doesnt have to be online○ Carleen: maybe instead they could be funding information rather than justasking for funding○ Andreas: should be a repository rather than a website due to maintenance for
updates○ Olaf: follows up what carleen said - recommends not to add a news section due
to the turnover time, embarrassing if news is from 6-12 months ago, whichmakes us look inactive, want something more persistent over time, put stuff likenews in social media channels, if you have news it is expected to be posted every
other week
○ Luke: store old publication elsewhere (makes it sound like we have a consensusabout this)○ Hester: Consolidate meetings and workshops (this is a good idea), should check
how it looks on mobile devices○ Natalija: make a connection to twitter for #IASC instead of news section, it wouldself update○ Wesley: do we have any analytics for how much traffic we have? Maybe wecould send out a poll to see what the expectations of interactions are with thisbefore we put too much energy into this, we don’t interact with organization
websites unless we need specific information○ Francisco: extremely important to keep the website for archive on past activities
because we are not formal and if we do not have this information up we will die
and we will lose historical information, would be nice to keep repository ofpublications and activities, difficult to maintain if it is not on a website because
we can easily lose it if not on website, even if there is no traffic● Wrap up - anything else that wants to be discussed?

○ Ward: shift everything by a year, we don’t have to apply for funding because wehaven’t used it this year
● Poll results
Layout RankingResults (%)

1 (very bad)

0

2

14

3

37

4

435 (very good)

6Content Ranking Results (%)

1 (very bad)

3

2

14

3

34

4

46

5 (very good)3

Anything Else to Discuss?

Nothing raised.