Update on Manuscripts

On Legitimate Sovereignty and Beyond Legality appear to have been accepted for publication, had the author been willing to transfer or give away the copyright. Although it is still possible that the manuscripts will be published in academic journals or through academic publishers, substantively the manuscripts might thus already be regarded as having passed the evaluation process in order to be regarded as being “scientific” in nature according to some of the allegedly prevailing standards.

As long as academic journals and publishers are regarded as gatekeepers of “science”, one might expect each journal and publisher individually and all of them collectively to have a responsibility to publish anything and everything that fulfils some predetermined criteria for “science”. Mere policy choices regarding, for instance, topics of manuscripts or copyright terms might not be regarded as sufficient or acceptable reasons for not publishing manuscripts which fulfil some predetermined criteria for “science”. In other words, gatekeepers of “science” might not be expected to be able to exclude manuscripts which fulfil some predetermined criteria for “science” from the purview of “science” simply through policy decisions that are unrelated to the predetermined criteria for “science” which may have the intent or effect of, for instance, depriving excessively relevant or accurate manuscripts of suitable “scientific” publication outlets.

There may be perhaps two main approaches to define the appropriate criteria for “science”. On the one hand, originality, relevance, accuracy, comprehensiveness, absence of double or multiple meanings or willingly and knowingly accessed non-consensually extracted surveillance information of others or any other potentially relevant criteria for “science” may be strictly enforced. In such a case finding a significant number of publishable manuscripts – if any – in entire “scientific” disciplines or fields of study may not be simple or feasible for extended periods of time. On the other hand, the definition and implementation of the appropriate criteria for “science” may be regarded as perhaps at least equally fallible process as the examination of any potential “scientific” conclusions which might derive from or be reached through the application of those criteria at any given point in time. In such a case one might expect perhaps all manuscripts aspiring to be “scientific” in nature to be published or made available to their intended readership unless other, non-“science”-related considerations – such as the presence of willingly and knowingly accessed non-consensually extracted surveillance information of others – prevents publication.

In the former case, any specific author or editor might have significant difficulties in identifying publishable manuscripts in addition to his/her own work for extended periods of time. Although an editor who might not be willing to call “science” anything and everything that other sufficiently powerful individuals, institutions, groups or cults in respect of one’s own career development might call “science” at any given point in time while excluding everything else might receive potentially a relatively low number of submissions, this might not be the most significant problem. Even if all “scientific” output in any specific field was submitted to the specific editor in question, there might be few, if any, publishable manuscripts based on the selected criteria. Furthermore, the fact that any specific author – including the editor him-/herself – might well be violently attacked, at the latest, when any specific sufficiently original, relevant, accurate or comprehensive manuscript lacking criminal, occult or cultist spin is published might in any case render any journal or publisher conforming to some predetermined criteria for “science” short-lived or, at the minimum, its publishing operations relatively infrequent. In other words, a long publication list, permanent academic position or participation in international “scientific” conferences, for instance, might be regarded as potential or likely evidence that the work of the author in question may be unlikely to be sufficiently original, relevant, accurate, comprehensive or free from non-“scientific” content to merit publication, academic employment or conference participation in the first place. In the latter case there may be little substantive need for pre-publication “scientific” gatekeepers. The task of weeding out manuscripts containing, for instance, willingly and knowingly accessed non-consensually extracted surveillance information of others and penalizing or eliminating their authors might more appropriately be regarded as the task of, for instance, (“)law(”) enforcement officers or military personnel as a part of warfare conducted through all available means rather than civilian gatekeepers of “science”.

For the moment, I am thus not aiming to establish a “scientific” journal or publisher that might better conform to the appropriate criteria for “science”. Instead, I am making my own “scientific” work available to its intended audience on my own websites. The objective or intention may not be the redefinition of “scientific” publication practices per se. Independent journals or publishers which better conform to the appropriate criteria for “science” and which the present author might not in all cases be aware of might still exist or be created autonomously in response to such a potential need rather than, for instance, as a reaction of a co-opted or cultist “scientific” community to multiple inquiries directed at geographically, disciplinarily, thematically or linguistically different parts of the global “scientific” beast. It is also, however, quite possible that this is one of the potential directions where “scientific” publication practices might evolve in the future: each author publishing his/her work with a form and content determined by the author him-/herself in an outlet or platform of his/her choice – perhaps after seeking unofficial or non-binding feedback from individuals whom the author in question might regard as being sufficiently independent and competent in any specific field, discipline or topic.

Advertisements

Enabling Direct Democracy

This petition is a private, non-public document, which is available exclusively for the personal use of natural persons who have not had access to any part of its contents before it was first made available to its target audience at https://academism.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/enabling-direct-democracy

The aim of the petition is to enable direct democracy – with or without the establishment of a new political party – by guaranteeing personal privacy, autonomy, bodily integrity, the transformability and openness of the political system and other potential preconditions for autonomous individual democratic participation through the following policies or reforms:

-All technologies are (“)legally(“) required to be publicly and transparently designed, developed and – whenever (“)legally(“) permitted – utilized. Without this and potentially several other requirements the implementation of some of the principles which may sometimes be attributed to, for instance, ”the rule of law” may not be possible even in theory. Victims of criminal offenses cannot, for instance, be expected to be able to describe the operational principles of technologies, which have required significant amounts of time and resources from a significant number of actors – including state actors – to develop, deploy and conceal from public attention.

-All potential means are utilized to extract all available information from former and current members of parliament, civil servants, business executives, journalists, reporters, judges, attorneys, the leadership of the police, the army, universities and religious organizations on their knowledge of and own participation in criminal offenses involving technologies which at least to some extent have been developed in secrecy without public oversight. In case such technologies have had an impact on the actually or potentially relevant legislation, assessment of whether criminal offenses have occurred and their respective seriousness may be based on legislation that was in force before the development or deployment of such technologies or which could have been expected to come into force, had the ongoing development or deployment of such technologies been widely known among the public. If there is a conflict between the rights of the victims and the rights of the perpetrators, the rights of the victims shall be secured. Were, for instance, it to be discovered that every member of parliament, top civil servant, executive of a large corporation, reporter, journalist, judge, attorney, the leadership of the police, the army, universities and religious organizations and a significant proportion of power-wielders in all areas of the society had been aware of and/or willingly and knowingly participated in large-scale non-consensual mind reading, mind control and torture of dissidents for years or decades, all such individuals could, according to the aforementioned principles, be executed.

-”The logic of a nuclear power” shall be implemented cost-effectively and availability will be extended to marginalized groups or specific victims of criminal offenses. A nuclear power in practice reserves the right to destroy the entire humanity in response to an attack targeted against itself. Such an objective may be attainable through various means, some of which may well be easier to implement, more reliable and/or cheaper than destroying the entire humanity through nuclear weapons in response to an attack. A state, group or individual victims of the aforementioned types of mind reading or mind control, for instance, could destroy the entire humanity – or at least a significant proportion of it – in case the parties behind such an attack do not stop their ongoing assault, execute the perpetrators and destroy all material obtained through their assault of non-consensual mind reading or mind control.

-The economic system will be reformed to enable the pursuit of the highest possible living standards and the largest conceivable degree of division of labor without the need to engage in the buying or selling of anything or anyone.

In case the personal privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity of every human being and other potential preconditions for autonomous individual democratic participation can be achieved and proven without destroying the entire humanity in the process, direct democracy can be implemented, for instance, as follows:

-Candidates who support direct democracy make a binding commitment to follow the majority preference of their voters in each, for instance, parliamentary vote if elected to the parliament.

-Every voter who votes for a candidate who supports direct democracy and wishes to participate in decision-making during the candidate’s term in case the candidate is elected records the entire voting process on the election day.

-After being elected each representative who supports direct democracy sets up, for instance, a closed internet group for everyone who is willing and able to prove his/her vote for a specific candidate in the elections with a video recording of the voting process. The group’s – and thus also the representative’s –  position on every issue that the representative may vote on in, for instance, the parliament will be determined through a prior internal voting process among the members of the closed internet group. In principle the candidates supporting direct democracy in any given elections may also be legal rather than natural persons – for instance, voters’ co-operatives, which, if elected, would also determine who might be sent, for instance, to the parliament at any given point in time to vote according to the co-operative’s preferences or for other purposes through prior internal voting among the members of the voters’ co-operative. The names and voting decisions of individuals participating in the closed internet group’s or voters’ co-operative’s internal voting processes could be kept confidential, although disclosing such information to all members of such groups might improve the accuracy and reliability of the internal voting results.

-In case the representative or whoever the voters’ co-operative might send, for instance, to the parliament at any given point in time to physically press the correct button according to the co-operative’s prior internal voting results intentionally fails to follow the majority preference of the prior internal voting processes, such an individual could be fired immediately, prosecuted for, for instance, breach of contract and replaced with a person, whom the voters regard as being more likely to follow the majority preference of the prior internal voting process in the next available voting opportunity in, for instance, the parliament.

-Each voter would be free to select the most appropriate voting methods for him-/herself in the internal voting processes within the closed internet group or the voters’ co-operative. Some voters might, for instance, wish to always either cast their votes personally or abstain from voting altogether, while others might share or rotate the opportunities to exercise their voting rights on behalf of each other either permanently or in specific predefined issues or periods. Voters who do not have an opportunity or the will to exercise their voting rights personally in each and every issue might thus, for instance, form groups which rotate the opportunity to exercise their total number of voting rights among their members permanently or in specific predefined periods or issues or use intermediaries in internal voting processes with similar possibilities for immediate dismissal, prosecution etc. of the intermediaries for, for instance, any potential breaches of contract as in the case of external representatives of the voters’ closed internet group or co-operative. In principle it might also be possible for members of the closed internet group or the voters’ co-operative to trade voting opportunities with each other in their internal voting processes. A voter who might, for instance, be convinced of the importance of a specific policy issue might offer all of his/her voting rights in all other internal voting processes for the entire duration of the representative’s or voters’ co-operative’s term in exchange for being able to cast the maximum number of votes in the issue deemed to be the most important by the voter in question.

-In case the representative is a legal rather than a natural person – for instance, a voters’ co-operative – all salary payments, cost reimbursements, payments to the representative’s political group etc. could be made to the voters’ co-operative, which could use the funds, for instance, for designing and operating its internal voting or other operational processes or distribute the funds partly or entirely to its members.

-Once representatives who support direct democracy have achieved a sufficient majority in the parliament, the entire political system could be transformed into a direct democracy with no representatives, parties, voters’ co-operatives or other institutional intermediaries between the voters exercising their direct voting rights and technical platforms – for instance, the internet or national voting networks that are not connected to the internet – which transparently aggregate and display the results of each vote. Any potential implementation of institutions other than the appropriate type of voting network – and any potential reforms or transformations of such a network – could be determined by the voters.

The petition also asks as optional information whether the person signing the petition is registered to vote in Finland, either in the national or EU parliamentary or the municipal elections.

In case this petition is – during an unspecified time frame – signed by less than 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland or at least 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland but implementation of the aforementioned processes may not be feasible at the time of reaching 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland for, for instance, (“)legal(“) reasons, the drafter of this petition may not necessarily take any further action based on this petition.

In case this petition is – during an unspecified time frame – signed by at least 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland and no other considerations prevent such an action, the drafter of this petition reserves the right to inquire whether signatories who are registered to vote in Finland would be  interested – at the time the limit of 5000 signatories who are registered to vote in Finland is reached or exceeded – in sending a signed document stating their support for the establishment of a new political party in Finland to a postal address which the drafter of this petition may, upon request, provide to them. Such signed statements might be enclosed to a potential application to register a new political party in Finland that might be submitted to the relevant (“)authorities(“) at that time. The drafter of this petition does not, however, make a personal commitment to establish a new political party, particularly in cases where such a process would require centralization of power to the drafter of this petition as an intermediate step on the road toward direct democracy, loss of privacy or the aforementioned objectives may be achieved more appropriately through other means than establishing a new political party. The drafter of this petition also does not recommend supporting anyone or anything that might claim centralization of power to him-/her-/itself to be necessary, desirable or appropriate to promote direct democracy.

Nor is it obvious that a predominantly political – or (“)legal(”), for that matter – solution to some of the aforementioned issues would necessarily be feasible or desirable. Some of the proposed solutions in this petition may well be preconditions for politics rather than outcomes that might be achieved through processes that might legitimately be regarded as predominantly political in nature. If, for instance, the voters do not have sufficient personal privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity for autonomous opinion formation and communication, democracy is not technically feasible irrespective of other characteristics of the (“)political(”) system. It is also not obvious that in the case of intensive and widespread attacks against one’s physical integrity and personhood (“)politics(”) would necessarily always be the primary means of potential self-defense. In such cases enabling direct democracy requires primarily guaranteeing the physical and informational integrity of the human body.

Sign this petition by posting your email address and, optionally, information on whether you are registered to vote in Finland as a comment or sending the information to tero.auvinen (at) yahoo.com, tero.auvinen (at) openmailbox.org and/or teauvi (at) gmail.com.

European Research Council Starting Grant 2017 Application as a Self-Employed Principal Investigator

Below is a copy of some of my email correspondence with the European Research Council Executive Agency regarding the application instructions and requirements for a self-employed Principal Investigator for the ERC Starting Grant 2017 – a 5-year grant “designed to support excellent Principal Investigators (PIs) at the career stage at which they are starting or consolidating their own independent research team or programme.” More than two months after the application deadline, the complete application instructions and requirements for self-employed Principal Investigators are still not available either publicly or to the applicants themselves. Approximately half an hour after sending my latest email, the Participant Portal appears to have become unavailable for a period of one hour and ten minutes due to maintenance. Some changes appear to have been made to the Portal during or shortly after this maintenance period.

Friday, December 23, 2016

From:  “ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu” <ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu>

To:  Tero Auvinen

Dear Dr Auvinen,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your message that has been forwarded to the Eligibility Committee.

As soon as a decision is taken on your proposal, it will be officially communicated to you with information on the available means of redress on such decision if needed.

With best regards,

[name removed]
ERCEA STG Call Coordination Team

From: Tero Auvinen
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016

To: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS

Dear [name removed],

Thank you for your email.

According to one potential interpretation, a self-employed Principal Investigator means, by definition, that there is no Host Institution. Also according to the National Contact Point, it is possible for a natural person (or “private person”, according to a literal translation) to apply for the ERC Starting Grant. Yet the application portal requires a PIC code and a “Short name” of “Your organisation” in order to be able to proceed to the next step of the application process. According to the National Contact Point, also natural person applicants will have to get a PIC code and indicate a “Short name” of their “organisation” in order to apply for the ERC Starting Grant. In other words, according to the National Contact Point, the application portal structurally requires natural person applicants to input incorrect or non-existing information (of a separate legal entity which, by definition, does not exist in the case of a natural person applicant) into the application portal in order to be able to submit applications as natural persons.

Could you please point out the specific part of a publicly available document which defines self-employed Principal Investigator and the responsibilities of the registered legal entity that you seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for a self-employed Principal Investigator. As has already been repeatedly stated, to the extent “[t]he specific conditions of engagement” for a self-employed Principal Investigator have been clarified by the National Contact Point (no response was received from the Horizon 2020 Helpdesk despite repeated contact attempts), the instructions have been followed when submitting the application. Your requirements, communicated after the application deadline rather than as a response to my repeated contact attempts prior to the application deadline, contradict the instructions of the National Contact Point, which have been followed when submitting the application.

Could you please publish the following information on a publicly available website today and send me the link when finished:

1) Complete application instructions for self-employed Principal Investigators including, among other things, your definition of a self-employed Principal Investigator and the nature and the role of the registered legal entity that you seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for self-employed Principal Investigators.

2) Complete application instructions for self-employed natural person applicants including, among other things, your definition of a natural person applicant and the nature and the role of the registered legal entity that you nonetheless seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for natural person applicants.

3) Your reasons for deliberately withholding adequate, if not crucial information from self-employed and/or natural person applicants prior to the application deadline.

4) Your views on whether you consider it to be appropriate to withhold the possibility to deliver required documentation directly, privately and securely to you via, for instance, the Participant Portal after the application deadline.

5) Information on whether it is also not technically possible to send messages to applicants via the Participant Portal in, for instance, the “My Notifications” section which still appears to be accessible and specifically asks about the applicants’ preferences in respect of the frequency of receiving alerts (rather than the actual content of private messages posted in the Participant Portal) via e-mail after the application deadline. In case it is technically possible to post private messages to applicants in the Participant Portal after the application deadline, please also include your reasons for not doing so upon request.

6) Your views on whether you consider it to be appropriate to deliberately discriminate against self-employed and/or natural person applicants by withholding an opportunity to submit all required documentation via the Participant Portal prior to the application deadline and deliberately violating the applicants’ privacy by requesting such documentation via unsecured email after the application deadline.

7) Your signed e-mail messages to me (but not my messages to you or my name) or at least their substantive contents, including, among other things, the following information:

-You are demanding a signed Host Institution support letter from a natural person self-employed Principal Investigator.

-You are doing so after failing to provide complete information prior to the application deadline despite repeated contact attempts.

-You are doing so after failing to provide an application portal that would allow every legitimate type of applicant to complete the application process without having to input incorrect or non-existing information merely in order to be able to proceed to the next step of the application process.

-You are doing so contrary to the instructions which were provided by the National Contact Point prior to the application deadline and which have been followed when submitting the application.

-You are doing so via unsecured email despite an applicant’s request to handle all communication directly, privately and securely via, for instance, the Participant Portal.

-You are specifying email as the only acceptable delivery mechanism for required documentation and in any case doing so within a timeframe that does not allow some more private means of delivery despite having ample opportunity to present such a request both before and after the application deadline with alternative, more private and/or secure means of delivery. The precise capacity in which you are demanding a natural person self-employed Principal Investigator to sign a support letter in the name of a non-existing registered legal entity – or the potential (il)legality of such a requirement in the first place – has not been specified, justified or “clearly provided”.

-In case you do indeed require natural person self-employed Principal Investigators to fill in information for a non-existing registered legal entity in the application form with contact information for such a fictional legal entity through which the applicants might actually be reached merely in order to be able to proceed to the next step of the application process, information on whether you consider such a requirement to be consistent with equality of all applicants in general and the protection of natural person self-employed applicants’ privacy in particular.

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

On Thu, 12/22/16, ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu <ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
To: Tero Auvinen
Cc: ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu
Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016

Dear Dr. Auvinen,

Thank you for your email.

After the call deadline no further documents can be uploaded into the submission system via the Participant Portal. Therefore, as indicated in our email from 20/12/2016, could you please provide us the signed Host Institution support letter by 23/12/2016 by sending it as an attachment in an e-mail to:
ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu

Information regarding the Host Institution letter has already been provided to you and the requirement of this document is clearly provided in the ERC Work Programme 2017 and under point 1.1.2.3 Supporting Documentation of the Information for Applicants:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/erc/h2020-wp17-erc_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide17-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf

Thank you.

Best Regards,

[name removed]

From: Tero Auvinen
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016
To: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS

Dear [name removed],

Thank you for your email.

May I ask you to post complete application instructions for self-employed Principal Investigators on a publicly accessible website and send me the link once finished? Such instructions should include, among other things, your definition of a self-employed Principal Investigator and the nature and the role of the registered legal entity that you seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for self-employed Principal Investigators. As such information might be expected to have been publicly available well before the application deadline, may I ask you to post the information at your earliest convenience and at the latest by the end of this week (at latest by
23/12/2016)?

As was already stated earlier, to the extent “[t]he specific conditions of engagement” for a self-employed Principal Investigator have been clarified by the National Contact Point (no response was received from the Horizon 2020 Helpdesk despite repeated contact attempts), the instructions have been followed when submitting the application. In case you still do require some additional documentation from me as specified in the published complete application requirements for self-employed Principal Investigators, could you please instruct where in the Participant Portal such documentation could be directly, privately and securely passed on to you
rather than having to handle such matters via email?

May I also ask you to send your reply to this message via the Participant Portal and send only a notification e-mail to this e-mail address every time you send a message via the Participant Portal?

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

On Tue, 12/20/16, ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu
<ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
To: Tero Auvinen
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Dear Dr. Auvinen,

Thank you for your email.

We are sorry to hear that your email to the Horizon 2020 helpdesk was not answered.

We are coming back to you regarding two points: the status of your legal entity and your Host Institution support letter.

From your email, we understand you are self-employed. This is perfectly possible for ERC applicants as stated in the ERC Work Programme 2017:
“Normally the Principal Investigator will be employed by the Host Institution, but cases where, for duly justified reasons, the Principal Investigator’s employer cannot become the host institution, or where the Principal Investigator is self-employed, can be accommodated..”
In such a case, we need to have more information on the legal status of your legal entity. Hence, could you please provide us with information regarding where and when the legal entity was created and/or has been registered? Could you also please provide us with the registration number of your legal entity?

Regarding your Host Institution support letter, please note that even if it has no letterhead or stamp, it has to be signed.  This point is addressed in the ERC Work Programme 2017 for which you will find an excerpt below:
The host institution must confirm its association with and its support to the project
and the Principal Investigator. As part of the application, the institution must provide a binding statement that the conditions of independence are already fulfilled or will be provided to the Principal Investigator if the application is successful, according to the template provided in the Information for Applicants. Proposals that do not include this institutional statement may be declared ineligible.

The requirement of the Host Institution’s binding statement is further developed in point 1.1.2.3 of the Information for Applicants which reads as follows:
“The host institution support letter (template available on PPSS, or please see Annex 2 to this document) needs to be originally signed, stamped and dated by the institution’s legal representative. Proposals that do not include this institutional statement may be declared ineligible.

Please get back to us at your earliest convenience and at the latest by the end of this week (at latest by 23/12/2016) by sending the requested information and the signed Host Institution letter as attachment in an e-mail to ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu (or by replying to this message).

Please note this request does not prejudge the final decision on the eligibility of the proposal.

Best Regards,

[name removed] for

[name removed]
Call Coordinator
ERC 2017 Starting Grant

From: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016
To: Tero Auvinen

Dear Dr Auvinen,

We herewith acknowledge receipt of your message that has been forwarded to the Eligibility Committee. We may come back to you if they consider necessary.

Please note the above does not prejudge the final decision on the eligibility of the above mentioned proposal.

For your information, only applicants whose proposals are declared ineligible will be further contacted (in January 2017) as stated in the Timeframe for the ERC 2017 Starting Call  https://erc.europa.eu/call-proposals#OngoingEval

With regards,
[name removed]

From: Tero Auvinen
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016
To: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS

Dear [name removed],

As was stated in the submitted host institution support letter, the host institution has no letterhead or stamp. The Principal Investigator is self-employed.

According to the Information for Applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 Calls document, “Normally the Principal Investigator will be employed by the host institution, but cases where, for duly justified reasons, the Principal Investigator’s employer cannot become the host institution, or where the Principal Investigator is self-employed, can be accommodated. The specific conditions of engagement will be subject to clarification and approval during the granting procedure or during the amendment procedure for a change of host institution.”

To the extent “[t]he specific conditions of engagement” for a self-employed Principal Investigator have been clarified by the National Contact Point (no response was received from the Horizon 2020 Helpdesk despite repeated contact attempts), the instructions have been followed when submitting the application.

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

On Fri, 12/2/16, ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu
<ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu>
wrote:

To: Tero Auvinen
Date: Friday, December 2, 2016

Dear Dr. AUVINEN,

We are writing to you regarding the proposal you submitted to the ERC 2017 Starting Grant Call. During the eligibility check of the proposal, we noticed the following problem(s) regarding the Host Institution’s support letter submitted with the above proposal:

Problem:

Wrong or missing Principal Investigator’s name

Wrong or missing Host Institution’s name

X No letterhead

X No stamp

X No signature / no name of the authorised official

No date

Incomplete

Other

(The problems that concern you are marked with X.)

Could you please provide us with a correct commitment letter from the Host Institution?

Please find attached to this e-mail the template of the Host Institution commitment
letter.

For more information you could consult the document ‘Information for applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 Calls’ available in the Participant Portal at

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide17-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf.

Please get back to us at your earliest convenience and at the latest within 5 working days after receipt of this e-mail (at latest by 9/12/2016) by sending the requested document as attachment in an e-mail to ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu (or by replying to this message).

Please note this request does not prejudge the final decision on the eligibility of the proposal.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

[name removed],
for

[name removed]
Call Coordinator
2017 ERC Starting Grant
European Research Council Executive Agency