From jimenez at tid.es Sat Feb 2 09:44:47 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:44:47 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] FW: FI-PPP phase II negotiation workshop - Proposed common content in all grant agreements Message-ID: Dear partners As requested by the EC, I am distributing this information to all FI-WARE partners As you are doubtless aware, there is a meeting next Monday and Tuesday. If you wish the PM transmit any comment in your behalf, please let us know BR From: Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu [mailto:Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu] Sent: viernes, 01 de febrero de 2013 16:23 To: maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it; gavras at eurescom.eu; pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com; henri.fourdeux at technicolor.com; fiona.williams at ericsson.com; sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; federico.alvarez at upm.es; ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi Cc: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu Subject: FI-PPP phase II negotiation workshop - Proposed common content in all grant agreements Dear all, Please find attached the proposed common content in all grant agreements with respect to governance structure, Key Performance Indicators and other common text (relation and openness towards other initiatives and common review process). Kindly share this information with all the partners in your consortium. Many thanks, Best regards, Conchi M. Concepcion Anton Garcia Unit E3- Net Innovation DG CONNECT European Commission Avenue de Beaulieu 25 BU 25 3/95 B-1049 Bruxelles telephone: (32 2) 29 84 792 Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu Linkedin ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Common Content.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 bytes Desc: Common Content.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 276654 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP-Programme-level KPIs.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 478720 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP-Programme-level KPIs.ppt URL: From jimenez at tid.es Sun Feb 3 09:56:37 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:56:37 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] (no subject) Message-ID: Dear all Last week we had a FI-WARE PCC where the new governance structure, as proposed in the mail (Thursday from M. Concepcion) was briefly discussed. Most companies favored the new approach , but a number of companies indicated that the legal departments should have a greater involvement in the process. The PCC agreed to send to the EC (in behalf of those companies who cannot be present at the meeting on Monday) the specific comments they would like to make. As indicated, those comments do not represent the general feeling of the PCC which was not able to find a consensus position due to the lack of time and the proximity of the meeting on Monday. We send them to inform the EC of the position of those companies I am relaying those comments to you without further comments. If you need clarification, please contact the relevant companies Comments from IBM The current proposed process is not acceptable for IBM. We request that any change to the CA or the DOW, if required, will be discussed and negotiated properly among all parties and their legal representatives. This includes a proposed drafted wording of the CA in a time frame that allows for negotiations and discussions among all the parties. We can not accept that a wide document which was not discussed profoundly will supersede the signed CA. One last thing - it is not clear to our legal department why the changes in the governance structure are expected to be in an amendment to the DOW. Each project has a Consortium Agreement in place which specifies the governance structure. Any change in that respect should be done in the Consortium Agreement. If the change is intended to deal with the relationship between the projects this should be done as an amendment to the Collaboration Agreement and not in a DOW. Comments from NSN * General comments: o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. o The decision power is now in a board. o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance by the Executive Industry Board. o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly accepted legal changes via Annex II. * Executive Industry Board: o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, which are made by other companies. o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, which are members of the EIB. o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, if companies following them get economic problems. o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. * Program Chair: o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at the Advisory Board. * Project Coordination Group: o The former proposed role basically remains. o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. * Project Management Office: o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of collaborative research. * Project Coordinator: o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his partners, because resources have to come from partners. o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. * The mandate of the EIB in particular "the industrial commercialisation/business strategy," is seen very critical with respect to competition law. Basically, this mandate is violating EU competition law. * Nokia Siemens Networks does not accept that as a project participant would render dispute resolution powers to the Programme Chair: e.g. "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as definitive." * We are also not supporting that the decision making is delegated from the individual projects to the Executive Industry Board (EIB)- even if NSN would be a member of such board. * The statement "Programme Management Office (PMO) manages coordinates the implementation of the decisions of AB, EIB and SG..." confirms that the intention is to have a top-down decision making process. This is not supported. Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. --- Jose Jimenez Project coordinator Fi-ware (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuttgen at neclab.eu Mon Feb 4 11:19:55 2013 From: stuttgen at neclab.eu (Heinrich J Stuettgen) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:19:55 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FBBF427CBCA6E4D9B064D23C263821759945ACC@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear all we do not agree with the proposed approach. Instead we share IBM?s view on the procedure as being unacceptable and most of the detailed comments raised by NSN in the attached email. Before any changes impacting the existing agreements signed by all are made, a proper discussion by all legals is required. Kind regards Heinrich St?ttgen From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:57 AM To: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu; Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Cc: 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: [Fiware-ga] (no subject) Dear all Last week we had a FI-WARE PCC where the new governance structure, as proposed in the mail (Thursday from M. Concepcion) was briefly discussed. Most companies favored the new approach , but a number of companies indicated that the legal departments should have a greater involvement in the process. The PCC agreed to send to the EC (in behalf of those companies who cannot be present at the meeting on Monday) the specific comments they would like to make. As indicated, those comments do not represent the general feeling of the PCC which was not able to find a consensus position due to the lack of time and the proximity of the meeting on Monday. We send them to inform the EC of the position of those companies I am relaying those comments to you without further comments. If you need clarification, please contact the relevant companies Comments from IBM The current proposed process is not acceptable for IBM. We request that any change to the CA or the DOW, if required, will be discussed and negotiated properly among all parties and their legal representatives. This includes a proposed drafted wording of the CA in a time frame that allows for negotiations and discussions among all the parties. We can not accept that a wide document which was not discussed profoundly will supersede the signed CA. One last thing - it is not clear to our legal department why the changes in the governance structure are expected to be in an amendment to the DOW. Each project has a Consortium Agreement in place which specifies the governance structure. Any change in that respect should be done in the Consortium Agreement. If the change is intended to deal with the relationship between the projects this should be done as an amendment to the Collaboration Agreement and not in a DOW. Comments from NSN * General comments: o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. o The decision power is now in a board. o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance by the Executive Industry Board. o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly accepted legal changes via Annex II. * Executive Industry Board: o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, which are made by other companies. o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, which are members of the EIB. o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, if companies following them get economic problems. o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. * Program Chair: o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at the Advisory Board. * Project Coordination Group: o The former proposed role basically remains. o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. * Project Management Office: o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of collaborative research. * Project Coordinator: o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his partners, because resources have to come from partners. o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. ? The mandate of the EIB in particular ?the industrial commercialisation/business strategy,? is seen very critical with respect to competition law. Basically, this mandate is violating EU competition law. ? Nokia Siemens Networks does not accept that as a project participant would render dispute resolution powers to the Programme Chair: e.g. ?The PC also acts as a ?mediator? between two or more partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as definitive.? ? We are also not supporting that the decision making is delegated from the individual projects to the Executive Industry Board (EIB)? even if NSN would be a member of such board. ? The statement ?Programme Management Office (PMO) manages coordinates the implementation of the decisions of AB, EIB and SG ? confirms that the intention is to have a top-down decision making process. This is not supported. Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. --- Jose Jimenez Project coordinator Fi-ware (34) 91 482 2660 _____ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5723 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Feb 7 16:32:09 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:32:09 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all Fi-WARE members As some of you may be aware, the version of the Governance model that was discussed at the PCC was not accepted by all the projects. A new draft has been made. I am enclosing this new draft for your comments Please send us your comments for sending them to the editor We (Telefonica) have also made some comments (see below). If you disagree with some of them, please let us also know. Telefonica Comments * The scope of activities of the so-called "Standardization Working Group" in previous drafts have extended to cover "Technical Guidance" which doesn't have any sense and creates a clear overlap with the Architecture Board mission. There is absolute no need for this and I rather oppose to creation of any group that deal with Technical Guidance. * In general terms, I have to say I'm rather skeptical about existence of any kind of Standardization WG at program level. I understand it sounds nice but I doubt of its effectiveness. In practice, standardization activities, if suitable, are pushed by interested parties when they have a strategic interest of it. Besides, need for standardization of a given spec is something that will be identified as relevant as project level. This means that, in practice, these kind of WGs don't use to provide much more value than simply dealing with dissemination of standardization efforts (e.g., help that partners of the program be aware of some standardization effort). Anyway, this is not a strong opinion as compared to the previous. I can live with the existence of a Standardization WG, it's simply that I doubt how much useful it may be. Another consideration is that maybe the leader of this WG should be assigned by the AB rather than the SB. * Pure editorial: unless I'm wrong and you are thinking that the DM and the BM roles are project-level role, I would then put as part of section 2 and I would retitled this section 3 as "Project-level roles" * I believe that there is part of the description of the DM that should go into the description of the BM role. I believe that the DM should be limited to perform activities dealing with wide dissemination of the FI-PPP have good networking with journalist, bloggers, etc and have the experience of setting up and coordinating large events. S/he would also deal ensure that the FI-PPP website are designed well enough to serve the dissemination goal. S/he also deal with designing and manage the presence of the FI-PPP in relevant social web networks (Twitter, etc). You know that this is more than enough and deserves assigning one person for that mission, without the need to give her/him any other extra burden like business/market analysis, sustainability, etc. With regard to implementation options, I don't have strong opinions but I believe that introducing this text in the DoW is enough and would probably the faster solution. This may create some inconsistencies with the Consortium Agreements signed by partners of the projects, but as far as I understand this shouldn't be a problem because the CAs are not known by the EC nor are part of the contract. Then we can instruct the legal departments to fix the CAs to align with the DoW but this doesn't need to be carried out in urgent mode. De: David Kennedy [mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 06 de febrero de 2013 22:29 Para: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es); Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) Asunto: FI-PPP Phase 2 Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document Hi phase 2 project leaders, Please find attached a proposed revision of the management document where I have tried to accept the commission requested and industry proposed improvements in the governance. In particular we should try to support a dynamic decision making processes, while trying to avoid ending up in contradiction of the collaboration agreement, The negotiation meeting showed a good co-operative spirit which I have tried to capture. The role of the text is to ensure that all participating projects have the same understanding of the expectations on them in terms of their responsibilities to participate in programme level activities and to commit the appropriate resources. We can solve many problems if we commit enough resources to programme level activities in our DoWs. A key point is to ensure that the Steering board, and in turn the project coordinators, are empowered to make the necessary programme decisions in good time, while respecting the need to consider the impact on individual project and participant resources. The intention is also to ensure that the Project coordinators are prepared for programme level decisions by having project resources assigned to the programme level activities from the start of the project. This should mean that the coordinator responsibility for SB decisions on such activities does not imply any new or unforeseen resource allocations. If these resources are not used they can be redeployed later in the projects life. The main challenge is how to introduce the industry strategic input. This has been introduced already to some extent by the commission inviting some players to consult with Stan?i? last year and the commissioner this year. Maybe the practical approach is just to acknowledge this and work with that group through a steering board decision to formalise this liaison. The alternative is to create an addendum to the collaboration agreement, but this could take a very long time to get the agreement of all (160+) parties. Anyway, please read the suggestions at the back of the document and consider the most pragmatic solution. May I ask for the project leaders to give a reply on behalf of their projects in an impossibly short time as ideally I would like to assemble a commented version on Friday - but I will understand if I can get the comments by Monday morning at the very latest. I only sent this to the project leader contacts I am aware of - the project leaders must decide for themselves who in their respective consortiums they wish to share this with. With this version we are risking that we are not showing enough commitment to make the management work as the commission would like to see - so please, when commenting, try not to remove all commitments and responsibilities. We must make some commitments to being proactive and positive in making this programme work - if we sterilise the text too much the commission will enforce theirs. It is not perfect - but is it adequate? Thanks for your co-operation, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 305242 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213.docx URL: From Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Thu Feb 7 23:28:23 2013 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 22:28:23 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C05E1F2@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C05E1F2@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C556EC660@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Hi, is there any indication about the outcome of the 4. Review? Usually, at the end of the review, the reviewer give feedback which includes accepted / rejected deliverables. We have not seen information about this. In addition, please distribute the review report directly to all partners, not only within the WPL/PCC list. We could not easily find the Review report from the 3. Review. - Ern? From: fiware-administrative-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-administrative-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2013 10:11 To: fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear all. Some of you are asking me about the e-mail of Mr Zwegers about rejection of costs. As I said in my previous e-mail , we are still waiting for the clarifications about rejection of costs from Mr Zwegers. Please find enclosed the ?Outcome FI-WARE review 3.pdf? and ?FI-WARE Review 3 Report.pdf? mentioned in the Financial Statement. (Review 3 = Month 12) BR Javier. De: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Enviado el: jueves, 07 de febrero de 2013 9:03 Para: fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: subsidies at tid.es Asunto: FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Importancia: Alta Dear all. Please find enclosed the Financial Assessment of Period 1 from Commission. Project Officer will clarify the rejected costs. As soon as we have his clarification, we?ll send it to you. We wish to draw your attention to the following: ? According to Article II.22 of the grant agreement, the Commission may, at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project, arrange for financial audits to be carried out, by external auditors, or by the Commission services themselves including OLAF. ? According to Article II.23 of the grant agreement, the Commission may initiate a technical audit or review at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project. At last but not least, we are waiting to receive the first interim payment from Commission. Rules of the first interim payment in the current Consortium Agreement will be applied. [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE058A.415BE410] BR Javier. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60495 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jdps at tid.es Fri Feb 8 11:13:57 2013 From: jdps at tid.es (JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:13:57 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C556EC660@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C05E1F2@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C556EC660@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C05F466@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Dear Ern?. There is no official outcome of the 4. Review sent by Commission yet. As soon as we have it, we?ll send it to the Consortium. Regarding Review 3, I?ve attached yesterday the relevant documents. BR Javier. De: Ernoe Kovacs [mailto:Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu] Enviado el: jueves, 07 de febrero de 2013 23:28 Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu; 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu) Asunto: RE: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Hi, is there any indication about the outcome of the 4. Review? Usually, at the end of the review, the reviewer give feedback which includes accepted / rejected deliverables. We have not seen information about this. In addition, please distribute the review report directly to all partners, not only within the WPL/PCC list. We could not easily find the Review report from the 3. Review. - Ern? From: fiware-administrative-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-administrative-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2013 10:11 To: fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear all. Some of you are asking me about the e-mail of Mr Zwegers about rejection of costs. As I said in my previous e-mail , we are still waiting for the clarifications about rejection of costs from Mr Zwegers. Please find enclosed the ?Outcome FI-WARE review 3.pdf? and ?FI-WARE Review 3 Report.pdf? mentioned in the Financial Statement. (Review 3 = Month 12) BR Javier. De: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Enviado el: jueves, 07 de febrero de 2013 9:03 Para: fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: subsidies at tid.es Asunto: FI-WARE: Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Importancia: Alta Dear all. Please find enclosed the Financial Assessment of Period 1 from Commission. Project Officer will clarify the rejected costs. As soon as we have his clarification, we?ll send it to you. We wish to draw your attention to the following: ? According to Article II.22 of the grant agreement, the Commission may, at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project, arrange for financial audits to be carried out, by external auditors, or by the Commission services themselves including OLAF. ? According to Article II.23 of the grant agreement, the Commission may initiate a technical audit or review at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project. At last but not least, we are waiting to receive the first interim payment from Commission. Rules of the first interim payment in the current Consortium Agreement will be applied. [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE05E6.F33B4D90] BR Javier. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60495 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From werner.mohr at nsn.com Fri Feb 8 18:53:31 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:53:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governanceorganisation document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B4312055E8C46@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Dear Jose, thank you for this new version. Please find attached our comments with revision marks. Best regards, Werner Dr. Werner Mohr Head of Research Alliances Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH CEF T&S IE Research Alliances St. Martin Strasse 76 81541 Munich Germany Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:32 PM To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governanceorganisation document Dear all Fi-WARE members As some of you may be aware, the version of the Governance model that was discussed at the PCC was not accepted by all the projects. A new draft has been made. I am enclosing this new draft for your comments Please send us your comments for sending them to the editor We (Telefonica) have also made some comments (see below). If you disagree with some of them, please let us also know. Telefonica Comments * The scope of activities of the so-called "Standardization Working Group" in previous drafts have extended to cover "Technical Guidance" which doesn't have any sense and creates a clear overlap with the Architecture Board mission. There is absolute no need for this and I rather oppose to creation of any group that deal with Technical Guidance. * In general terms, I have to say I'm rather skeptical about existence of any kind of Standardization WG at program level. I understand it sounds nice but I doubt of its effectiveness. In practice, standardization activities, if suitable, are pushed by interested parties when they have a strategic interest of it. Besides, need for standardization of a given spec is something that will be identified as relevant as project level. This means that, in practice, these kind of WGs don't use to provide much more value than simply dealing with dissemination of standardization efforts (e.g., help that partners of the program be aware of some standardization effort). Anyway, this is not a strong opinion as compared to the previous. I can live with the existence of a Standardization WG, it's simply that I doubt how much useful it may be. Another consideration is that maybe the leader of this WG should be assigned by the AB rather than the SB. * Pure editorial: unless I'm wrong and you are thinking that the DM and the BM roles are project-level role, I would then put as part of section 2 and I would retitled this section 3 as "Project-level roles" * I believe that there is part of the description of the DM that should go into the description of the BM role. I believe that the DM should be limited to perform activities dealing with wide dissemination of the FI-PPP have good networking with journalist, bloggers, etc and have the experience of setting up and coordinating large events. S/he would also deal ensure that the FI-PPP website are designed well enough to serve the dissemination goal. S/he also deal with designing and manage the presence of the FI-PPP in relevant social web networks (Twitter, etc). You know that this is more than enough and deserves assigning one person for that mission, without the need to give her/him any other extra burden like business/market analysis, sustainability, etc. With regard to implementation options, I don't have strong opinions but I believe that introducing this text in the DoW is enough and would probably the faster solution. This may create some inconsistencies with the Consortium Agreements signed by partners of the projects, but as far as I understand this shouldn't be a problem because the CAs are not known by the EC nor are part of the contract. Then we can instruct the legal departments to fix the CAs to align with the DoW but this doesn't need to be carried out in urgent mode. De: David Kennedy [mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 06 de febrero de 2013 22:29 Para: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es); Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) Asunto: FI-PPP Phase 2 Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document Hi phase 2 project leaders, Please find attached a proposed revision of the management document where I have tried to accept the commission requested and industry proposed improvements in the governance. In particular we should try to support a dynamic decision making processes, while trying to avoid ending up in contradiction of the collaboration agreement, The negotiation meeting showed a good co-operative spirit which I have tried to capture. The role of the text is to ensure that all participating projects have the same understanding of the expectations on them in terms of their responsibilities to participate in programme level activities and to commit the appropriate resources. We can solve many problems if we commit enough resources to programme level activities in our DoWs. A key point is to ensure that the Steering board, and in turn the project coordinators, are empowered to make the necessary programme decisions in good time, while respecting the need to consider the impact on individual project and participant resources. The intention is also to ensure that the Project coordinators are prepared for programme level decisions by having project resources assigned to the programme level activities from the start of the project. This should mean that the coordinator responsibility for SB decisions on such activities does not imply any new or unforeseen resource allocations. If these resources are not used they can be redeployed later in the projects life. The main challenge is how to introduce the industry strategic input. This has been introduced already to some extent by the commission inviting some players to consult with Stan?i? last year and the commissioner this year. Maybe the practical approach is just to acknowledge this and work with that group through a steering board decision to formalise this liaison. The alternative is to create an addendum to the collaboration agreement, but this could take a very long time to get the agreement of all (160+) parties. Anyway, please read the suggestions at the back of the document and consider the most pragmatic solution. May I ask for the project leaders to give a reply on behalf of their projects in an impossibly short time as ideally I would like to assemble a commented version on Friday - but I will understand if I can get the comments by Monday morning at the very latest. I only sent this to the project leader contacts I am aware of - the project leaders must decide for themselves who in their respective consortiums they wish to share this with. With this version we are risking that we are not showing enough commitment to make the management work as the commission would like to see - so please, when commenting, try not to remove all commitments and responsibilities. We must make some commitments to being proactive and positive in making this programme work - if we sterilise the text too much the commission will enforce theirs. It is not perfect - but is it adequate? Thanks for your co-operation, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213_NSN.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 323488 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213_NSN.docx URL: From jdps at tid.es Sat Feb 9 11:29:00 2013 From: jdps at tid.es (JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] FI-WARE: Additional beneficiaries to FI-WARE project in its second Open Call Message-ID: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C060B7B@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Dear all, This e-mail is to report on the status of the evaluation process for additional beneficiaries to FI-WARE project in its second Open Call. The evaluation process carried out by the external evaluators is over and its results have been communicated to EC. While the EC take their final decision and send us their feedback, let us anticipate internal work. [cid:image003.jpg at 01CE06B8.A7234A20] As part of the procedure, we must ensure that no partner objects to the results. If you have any objections, please send an e-mail to subsidies at tid.es by February 15th, 2013 EOB, keeping jhierro at tid.es on the recipient list. You can find the evaluated proposals at: http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1726/WeX.zip http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1722/FIBRE.zip http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1721/FIAR.zip http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1724/FI-INMEDIA.zip http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1725/STAR-WARE.zip http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1723/FICLE.zip And the ESR (Evaluation Summary Report) at: http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1838/Consensus+Evaluation+Form+-+WeX+Final.xlsx http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1839/Consensus+Evaluation+Form+-+FIBRE+Final.xlsx http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1840/Consensus+Evaluation+Form+-+FI-AR+Final.xlsx http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1841/Consensus+Evaluation+Form+-+FI-INMEDIA+Final.xlsx http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1842/Consensus+Evaluation+Form+-+STAR-WARE+Final.xlsx http://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/27/1843/Consensus+Evaluation+Form+-+FICLE+Final.xlsx Thanks in advance. Best regards, The Fi-WARE Project ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 81850 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From jhierro at tid.es Sat Feb 9 19:01:50 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:01:50 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: RV: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0601A7@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0601A7@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <51168F0E.3030103@tid.es> Dear partners, Mr. Arian Zwegers, our PO, sent to us the following message on Friday evening which elaborates on the justification of the calculation of rejection of costs in the first reporting period. As you remember, the rejection of costs was already announced in the Month 12 review report sent by the EC on August 2012. However, we didn't know what was the exact amount of costs that would be rejected and how it was going to be calculated. Our PO says that the attached report provides that explanation. Note that in the previous email with subject "Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012" there were three attachments. One of them (file "1201342.pdf") elaborates on what is the amount of the initially rejected costs that "may be resubmitted as adjustment in the next reporting period". This amount that may be resubmitted comes as result of the M18 interim review as far as I understand, where the EC and reviewers agreed that the project had significantly recovered. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 De: subsidies-bounces at tid.es [mailto:subsidies-bounces at tid.es] En nombre de Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu Enviado el: viernes, 08 de febrero de 2013 16:25 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu; subsidies at tid.es; Stephane.ANDRIES at ec.europa.eu Asunto: Re: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Jose, Please find attached the clarification on the rejected costs for RP1. Best regards, Arian. From: CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu [mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:49 PM To: jimenez at tid.es Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANDRIES Stephane (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Mr. Jimenez Delgado, I wish to advise you that the reports mentioned in Article 4 of Annex II to the grant agreement in reference, and submitted to the Commission on 05/07/2012, for the reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 have been examined. The results of the analysis of the financial statement are detailed in the attached financial statement acceptance forms. In summary a payment of 2.467.895 EUR will be made. We wish to draw your attention to the following: ? According to Article II.22 of the grant agreement, the Commission may, at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project, arrange for financial audits to be carried out, by external auditors, or by the Commission services themselves including OLAF. ? According to Article II.23 of the grant agreement, the Commission may initiate a technical audit or review at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project. The payment of the Union financial contribution to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation on payments to the other beneficiaries. Therefore, you shall ensure that all the appropriate payments are made to them without unjustified delay (see Articles II.2 and II.3). Furthermore note that according to the provisions of the Financial Regulation and of the grant agreement, sums due to the Union by a beneficiary may be recovered by offsetting them against any sums it owes to the beneficiary concerned, after informing the latter accordingly. Please inform the other beneficiaries of the results of the financial assessment for this reporting period. Yours sincerely, ZWEGERS Arian email Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu Project Officer ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20121013_FI_WARE_rejections_RP1_for_AFU.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 152064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE Rejection of costs in first reporting period.doc Type: application/msword Size: 64000 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Subsidies mailing list Subsidies at tid.es https://listas.tid.es/mailman/listinfo/subsidies From jhierro at tid.es Mon Feb 11 10:21:58 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:21:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: RE: About Financial assessment of the FI-WARE Grant Agreement for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D68CA7@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D68CA7@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <5118B836.7080800@tid.es> Hi, Some responses from our PO regarding questions we made to him that were relevant to share. Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: About Financial assessment of the FI-WARE Grant Agreement for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:51:50 +0000 From: To: CC: , Dear Juanjo, 1) Yes 2) The temporary rejected costs may (or actually: should) be resubmitted in the second reporting period. As always, (re-)submission does not necessarily mean acceptance. Costs were and are subject to review. Best regards, Arian. From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:49 PM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: Jose Jimenez; subsidies at tid.es Subject: About Financial assessment of the FI-WARE Grant Agreement for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Arian, Several partners are asking and we would like to know what is the answer to the following questions: 1. Some of the rejected costs for the first report are marked as "definitive". We understand, though, that the funding that is not consumed in the first reporting period because of that is not lost and can be claimed as a result of work actually performed in the next reporting periods. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. 2. Regarding the ?temporary? rejected costs, our understanding is that after the M18 interim review (that demonstrated the hard work carried out to get back again on track) these temporary rejected costs will be automatically recognized in the report period P2, additionally to the ones corresponding to accepted costs for that period. This would be the interpretation of the sentences in the ?1201342.pdf? file where there is a sentence for each partner that says ?Please note that a total of xxx.xxx ? may be resubmitted as adjustment in the next reporting period.?. May you confirm ? Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 20 08:49:04 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:49:04 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51247FF0.8080006@tid.es> Hi all, Please find enclosed latest version of the FI-PPP governance model. We haven't had time to review it ourselves. I'm just passing it to you. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:34:40 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , Jimenez Delgado Jos? , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) Hi all, Attached is revision 3 of the governance model where I have added the updates and comments received - or replied directly if your suggestions could not be accommodated. We seem to have consensus that the model is possible through elaborating our shared understanding of the Advisory function and the chair roles through SB decisions. This roles and activities are in line with the intentions of the collaboration agreement and can be viewed as refinements and improvements of the processes described. The major changes in revision 3 are: * update of the description of the standardisation working group, - removal of alignment activities that overlapped with the AB. * Programme chair or AB chair as mediator for conflict in the first instance, but open to invoke a professional mediator (as mentioned in the Collaboration agreement) if this does not resolve the problem. * 2 representatives of each project in the Steering board There were comments about the voting rights in the SB for programme officers, and others attending the meeting, possibly confusing the project based nature of the steering function. To avoid any confusion, we should ensure that FI-PPP SB decisions are only based on the collated project positions, as prepared by the project co-ordinators. I have not put any text on voting in this model to avoid creating any conflicts or confusion here. I believe, based on an audio conference Ilkka and I had with the commission this morning, that we can get the commission to accept this version but we need to be clear that you will accept this version too. The next action we would like to kick off is a short discussion, as raised by Sjaak, on what level of resources are actually needed for programme level activities - we can circulate a proposal on this this afternoon to gather our ideas and seek consensus. SO ACTION FOR PROJECT LEADERS - please confirm if the version is acceptable to you for inclusion in the DoW. Many thanks, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 281257 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Feb 20 08:59:44 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Jose leaving Telefonica Message-ID: Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Feb 20 09:28:25 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:28:25 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12436_1361348907_5124892B_12436_68_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C09DA8C@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi Jose, It was a pleasure working with you, first on the Fi-Ware proposal and then in the FI PPP during all these months. In some discussions you are also part of the memory of this story. I wish you the best for your new professional activities and of course expect to meet you soon for some new projects in the FI PPP context. Godd luck and see you soon! BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : mercredi 20 f?vrier 2013 09:00 ? : 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Wed Feb 20 19:33:17 2013 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:33:17 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model_comments Atos Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A01AD75C0@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Hi Juanjo, all, Thanks for the next version of the Governance model. Find below few comments from Atos: ? I understand this is a mistake, but the descriptions of the Dissemination manager and the Business impact manager are blurred. In fact they both mention responsibilities such as "market analysis, business models, sustainability issues", or "liaison with other initiatives such as ICT Labs, Smart cities, etc". If the two roles are merged, as the documents points out (to be decided by the SB, then it makes sense that both descriptions are merged too; if that doesn't happen, then I do not think that mixing the two things makes sense). Besides that I would say that the two roles require different profiles. ? Again, in the case of these two roles the document says that they will be funded by CONCORD. Does it mean that they will also be selected/decided by CONCORD? o In the case of the standardization WG it is explicitly said that the leader of this WG will be assigned by the SB o In the case of the Policy and Regulation WG it is explicitly said that the leader of the WG will be assigned by the SB o However, in the case of Communication and Dissemination WG and Business Impact and Exploitation WG this is not said as such. Instead, it is said: "The Dissemination Manager is the leader of this Working Group." and "The Business Impact Manager is the leader of this Working Group". Besides these comments, let me add some additional aspects already highlighted by our legal department. I think the new version of the document complies with it, but just as reminder. ? Impact of the EIB decisions will be evaluated at the level of each project if there is an impact on the DoW and decisions will be taken by them following the principle of programme spirit and collaboration, but always respecting the clauses set by the collaboration agreement: ? Decisions with impact on the work plan committed to in Annex 1 of a Grant Agreement of an ongoing FII Project must be confirmed by the Parties of the affected FII Project and shall, for the sake of clarity, have no binding effects on such FII Project without such confirmation ? "For the sake of clarity, none of the bodies described (...) shall have the right or authority to take decisions which are binding on any single FII Project" Can you provide some guidance on the deadlines for the Governance model? When should it be agreed by all parties? Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: mi?rcoles, 20 de febrero de 2013 8:49 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model Hi all, Please find enclosed latest version of the FI-PPP governance model. We haven't had time to review it ourselves. I'm just passing it to you. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:34:40 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , Jimenez Delgado Jos? , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) Hi all, Attached is revision 3 of the governance model where I have added the updates and comments received - or replied directly if your suggestions could not be accommodated. We seem to have consensus that the model is possible through elaborating our shared understanding of the Advisory function and the chair roles through SB decisions. This roles and activities are in line with the intentions of the collaboration agreement and can be viewed as refinements and improvements of the processes described. The major changes in revision 3 are: * update of the description of the standardisation working group, - removal of alignment activities that overlapped with the AB. * Programme chair or AB chair as mediator for conflict in the first instance, but open to invoke a professional mediator (as mentioned in the Collaboration agreement) if this does not resolve the problem. * 2 representatives of each project in the Steering board There were comments about the voting rights in the SB for programme officers, and others attending the meeting, possibly confusing the project based nature of the steering function. To avoid any confusion, we should ensure that FI-PPP SB decisions are only based on the collated project positions, as prepared by the project co-ordinators. I have not put any text on voting in this model to avoid creating any conflicts or confusion here. I believe, based on an audio conference Ilkka and I had with the commission this morning, that we can get the commission to accept this version but we need to be clear that you will accept this version too. The next action we would like to kick off is a short discussion, as raised by Sjaak, on what level of resources are actually needed for programme level activities - we can circulate a proposal on this this afternoon to gather our ideas and seek consensus. SO ACTION FOR PROJECT LEADERS - please confirm if the version is acceptable to you for inclusion in the DoW. Many thanks, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Thu Feb 21 08:54:32 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] R: Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose, This is a totally unexpected communication to me, I didn't hear about it! I believe we'll lack one of the main supporters of FI-WARE and FI-PPP initiative, thanks a lot for your precious work in, and for, FI-WARE. I wish you all the best for your new professional challenges, and look forward to meeting you again for future collaborations! Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: mercoled? 20 febbraio 2013 09:00 A: 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Thu Feb 21 09:36:23 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:36:23 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose, I am a very, very unhappy that hear this very bad news. It was always a great joy to work with you in FI-WARE. For the further future I wish you all the best. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Garino Pierangelo Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 08:55 To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: fiware-pcc; 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Jose leaving Telefonica Dear Jose, This is a totally unexpected communication to me, I didn't hear about it! I believe we'll lack one of the main supporters of FI-WARE and FI-PPP initiative, thanks a lot for your precious work in, and for, FI-WARE. I wish you all the best for your new professional challenges, and look forward to meeting you again for future collaborations! Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: mercoled? 20 febbraio 2013 09:00 A: 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 677 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Feb 21 10:23:31 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:23:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14403_1361438839_5125E877_14403_118_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E159CE11@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Jos?, It was true pleasure to work with you on FI-WARE also to see you in Madrid on Tuesday. Once more many thanks for your hard work and commitment to the success of FI-WARE and FI-PPP Programme. And yes I'm confident that you will find opportunities to continue supporting us. Wish you in any case success. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : mercredi 20 f?vrier 2013 09:00 ? : 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 08:06:22 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:06:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects In-Reply-To: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <512C5EEE.1050702@tid.es> Dear partners in FI-WARE, The EC is asking us to come to a conclusion on the new governance model they would like to introduce in contracts of projects active in phase 2 of the FI-PPP (this includes FI-WARE, via an amendment). The FI-WARE PCC (Project Coordinator Committee) will meet tomorrow as to be able to agree on a common set of comments to be forwarded to the EC. In the event you have any comment regarding the last draft version of the Governance Model, please forward them before EOB today so that we can take it into consideration during our discussion. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit [cid:part1.02080604.06040207 at tid.es] European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Note JV to FIPPP COs on Gov (120213)_RB.doc.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80526 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 847101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 01:53:10 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:53:10 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283537 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 01:53:32 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:53:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <512D590C.7000402@tid.es> FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283537 bytes Desc: not available URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 07:49:10 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:49:10 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> References: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo and all IBM's comments are attached and reflected in the document. Truthfully, these are only the most important ones we have on R4. There are more, but at this stage, before today's meeting, we should focus on handling those key points. Summary of Key Comments from IBM. * In 3.3, the AB *advices* on technical aspects (not *in charge*). * In 3.3, Changed the text on *mediation*. Pls note, mediation cannot be enforced, and moreover professional mediation very costly - I assume the partners will not want to commit to this expense up front. * In 4.2, removed the text which implies that PrC can make decisions on behalf of the project parties. Critical point. Best Regards Yaron From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 27/02/2013 02:53 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez ( federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' ( anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word ?ensure? to ?oversee? which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM ? European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213.docx" deleted by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213 IBM Key Comments.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 272664 bytes Desc: not available URL: From werner.mohr at nsn.com Wed Feb 27 10:27:15 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:27:15 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> References: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, thank you for this version. I commented the former version with my mail on February 20 (cf. attachment) and both comments seem not be communicated to these people, who are working on the document. The criterion for EIB members is rather strict with in minimum 20 million investment. I asked several times to check, how many organizations do have such an investment, which may result in a very small EIB. In addition, the period is not clear to spent these 2 million. There is a mismatch in the composition of the architecture board between this governance text and the Collaboration Agreement. In order to avoid misunderstandings and discussions there should be no such mismatch. Please forward these comments to David Kennedy. Best regards, Werner Dr. Werner Mohr Head of Research Alliances Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH CEF T&S IE Research Alliances St. Martin Strasse 76 81541 Munich Germany Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Juanjo Hierro Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:53 AM To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)" Subject: RE: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:18:24 +0000 Size: 36270 URL: