• CIC and PM’s Council

    • Computer purchase contract signed last week, delivery ETA is December 15. Tender for data center not yet initiated. Communications with U.S. Embassy and U.S. State Department about security concerns; to follow up.

    • Governance model completed, now with YSU. Significant obstacles identified at YSU, working with several key people in the government to overcome these. Not yet clear outcome. Plan B being considered.

    • A.I., Robotics, Aerospace, Quantum Tech in the pipeline. Don’t know about Biotech and others. Proposals will be presented to PM soon based on two key principles:

      • Model prepared for CIC would likely be adopted across the board.
      • Financing will likely be proposed along a multi-pronged model: infrastructure from PM’s Council, base operational budgets from Gitcom through grants, additional awards to attract talent from outside through the PM’s Council.

      Budget is in the tens of millions of dollars, with roadmap to start early 2025.

  • Social Sciences

    There’s a proposal to establish a center based on the following principles:

    • Joint operation between UFAR and YSU. Eventually AUA would be invited but not now.
    • Program will need to focus on International Relations/Political Science/International law + Research on National Identity
    • Launch could be combined with a high-profile conference on national identity that was proposed by another ASOF group. Minister of Labor is involved.
    • White paper needs to be prepared in about one month and sent to UFAR. UFAR Rectrice will take it to the French Foreign Ministry for funding and blessing; we will need to take it to our Foreign Ministry for the same. If all goes well, we will need to develop the governance model and responsibilities through a task force. Potential funding for an endowment from the U.S. identified.

  • Proposal coming from Ministry of Labor for a high-school pipeline for science-tech centers. Funding secured, we are being asked for guidance, networking, and engagement. We will receive the proposal soon.

  • ArCH

    • Meeting set up with several banks with the help of Nerses. Very positive, likely to draw funding for ArCH. One bank is proposing calling a meeting of the union of banks in Armenia to set up a permanent fund for ArCH that provides long term security. Meeting to be arranged in a few weeks.
    • ArCH has applied to Europa Nostra membership upon invitation by Europa Nostra. It will be designated as Armenia’s representative of the European Hub Project. This will provide some basic operational budget for ArCH.
    • The ArCH Council has been asked to provide a response to a campaign by our friendly neighbor claiming ownership of Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh. There is both scientific and legal elements to this, and there’s a deadline to respond by October. ArCH will organize an effort in this direction.
    • Synergy pledged to donate $100,000/year to ArCH’s “pan-Armenian inventory of cultural heritage” project by providing their technical platform and service at cost and no profit. The Ministry of Culture has agreed to join the effort by making data in their possession available for the project.
    • Several MoU’s are likely to be signed with the Ministry of Culture and NAASR in the next weeks.
    • ArCH will launch soon its website: arch.asof.am

  • HERA

    • HERA group has been meeting regularly as I am cc-ed on their communications. The Board will discuss where to go next. Artak has an interesting idea that could provide resources and funding via UNDP. Anoush knows more of course and will provide an update.

  • MoU with UATE on WCIT: to be discussed in the Board meeting

  • MoU with 2050 project: I asked them for documentation in English to see where our input would be expected and useful. Once they sent it, we can discuss further.

  • Tech Transfer Policy With the establishment of CIC, the issue of the absence of tech and IP transfer policy in Armenia is becoming a problem. Research centers will need guidance on this to secure grants and engagements with the private sector. There are three directions at play: (1) university-based policy developed though ASOF’s group on higher education reform — we have all that is necessary to devise this within weeks through our contacts with Harvard’s Tech Transfer Office; (2) A PPP model spearheaded by the U.S. State Department — they reached out to us and asked for engagement; Ministry of Economy is involved too; (3) A national policy that requires parliamentary approval advocated by the Ministry of HTI — they also want ASOF to guide in this. We have been asked to act as mediators and a coordination point for these 3 possible directions. I avoided engagement until it became clear after discussions with the U.S. Embassy that we don’t have the option to avoid getting involved… I will call a Zoom meeting of all stakeholders in the next weeks to see where things evolve. It’ll have to involve representatives from the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy, Ministries of Economy and HTI, ASOF people, our contacts from Harvard. Advice in this direction would be highly appreciated.

  • Reflection on the conference

    • Statistics
      • Based on badges, about 200 people attended.
      • About 50% were guests from Armenia. Majority of attendees were from Armenia.
      • Survey results will be published soon; a sneak peek:
        • 52 people participated in the survey
        • Members scored the usefulness of the conference at 80%
        • Guest scored the usefulness of the conference at 85%
        • Most guests attended 2-4 sessions only; most members attended the majority of the sessions.
        • People want to have the next conference in Armenia, but not necessarily in Yerevan.
    • My proposal for next year: 2 working days with longer sessions and with the content decided mainly by the Board based on priorities developed over the year; provide lunch to encourage networking between sessions; 1 public day in a central location. Avoid conflict with APRI’s schedule. Hold the 2 private days outside Yerevan.
    • We need better ways to do public outreach if we want to develop this direction. We assumed that the general public and specially students are interested to hear about our discussions; it seems we need to nurture this interest, and an one-off per year event is likely not enough. I believe it is not about throwing resources on marketing but more about developing relationships and do continual outreach year round. I learned of a similar low attendance outcome with an event by Aurora foundation held at the Opera house with significantly more marketing resources.
    • Set the conference date and venue early. Planning the details early is not feasible as a lot of the focus directions get developed during engagements throughout the year.
    • We spent $20k and budgeted $15k. The difference was mostly due to funds spent on marketing: art exhibition, dance, etc… It is not clear that this was worthwhile if the goal was to attract an audience to the main sessions.