Dear all,
Just a small comment: I doubt that the following sentence is useful and desirable. External evaluators should decide if we breach anti-trust-law and putting this sentence is clearly a red flag for external readers. In addition, the DoW is not a legal document so this legal statement has no place is the DoW.
"The FI-PPP Steering Board (SB) agrees to liaise with the EIB on the basis that its construction and operation does not constitute a breach of anti-trust law".
BR
Thierry Nagellen
Program Manager Future Internet
Orange Labs Networks & Carriers
905 rue Albert Einstein
06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex
+33 492 94 52 84
+33 679 85 08 44
De : fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ernoe Kovacs
Envoyé : mardi 5 mars 2013 17:58
À : Juanjo Hierro; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu
Cc : LUIS GARCIA GARCIA
Objet : [Fiware-ga] Comments on Revision 5 of the FI-WARE Governance Document
Hello,
please find attached comments on the Rev: 5 of the document.
Basically it
- asks for clarification on certain topics
- agrees with comments done by SAP and IBM that further
discussion on the EIB is needed
Kind regards
Ernö
From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 09:54
To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Cc: LUIS GARCIA GARCIA
Subject: [Fiware-ga] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document
Dear colleagues,
Please find enclosed the response to the comments we sent to the EC last Wednesday regarding comments agreed on the Governance Document.
I assume that revision 5 I have just distributed to you is aligned with the response we get here.
A significant point is the response given regarding prevalence of the DoW upon any short of Agreements. I would suggest that you pay special attention to that.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator
and 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:
RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:39:19 +0000
From:
David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>
To:
Hierro Sureda Juan José <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>, "Fatelnig Peter" <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu"<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>
CC:
Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu> <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Lakaniemi Ilkka <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi><mailto:ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>, Hierro Sureda Juan José <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
HI Juanjo,
Please see comments below with respect to changes implemented in Version 5.
David
From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es]
Sent: 27 February 2013 16:48
To: David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>
Cc: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José
Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4
Dear David, Ilkka and members of the EC,
This email tries to summarize the consensus in FI-WARE regarding the proposed Governance Model document.
There is agreement (with no expressed objection) that the following comments should be taken into account regarding the proposed document:
* Regarding description of the SB, the AB and the PMO (Secretariat) the document should include the list of tasks for these bodies that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement. The lists of tasks proposed for each body in the latest draft may be considered a subset of the corresponding tasks listed in the Collaboration Agreement. If some of the tasks listed in the Collaboration Agreement are not listed in the governance document, it may be interpreted like that task is not longer valid. However, we believe that all the tasks listed in the Collaboration Agreement for each of the mentioned bodies is still valid. The easiest solution would be to copy the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement in the new Governance Model document.
There is no logic to the concern that the Collaboration Agreement is compromised by some highlights being in the DoW. It still applies as the agreement between participants. However, as you suggested. I have proposed to include the listed responsibilities as an annex to minimise confusion.
* Given said the above, clarifications or further development of the description of some tasks may be feasible. Indeed, we propose to further develop/refine the following tasks assigned to the AB in the Collaboration Agreement:
* task: "continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program, evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical divergence" in the CA --> We propose to copy the description but add the following sentence: "As an example, continuously monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects."
* task: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities" in the CA --> We propose to add "carried out in the Standardization Working Group"
It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments.
* Regarding mediation in the SB and the AB, we propose the following:
* AB: a mediator would be selected among the AB members based on agreement by the projects in conflict (rationale, in many cases FI-WARE will be one of the parties in conflict and therefore there may be a conflict of interest if the AB chairman mediates)
* SB: the program chairman may play the role of mediator if the conflict doesn’t involve CONCORD. It it does, then same procedure as with the AB would apply
OK – added.
* We don't agree to make reference to "overall FI-PPP business plans" in the description of the . Following is the text that we would like to propose:
* Business impact and Exploitation Working Group:
The main objective of the Business Impact and Exploitation Working Group is to maximise the impact and exploitation potential of the FI-PPP Programme and the individual FI-PPP projects. The WG facilitates and monitors the discussion on sustainability and enablement of the exploitation of FI-PPP results. The WG guides the development of project-level “value networks” based on appropriate business cases and exploitation plans, and facilitates the creation of exploitation and impact synergies across the Programme. This will involve collecting the terms and conditions for third-party and post-programme use of the results from the IRP owners as well as stimulating the engagement of SMEs, user groups and web entrepreneurs. This WG requires the participation of all FI-PPP projects, especially FI-WARE as regards the exploitation of Generic Enablers, and requires the contribution of the individual IPR owners of individual results. The Business Impact Manager is the leader of this Working Group.
OK - added
* Regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, we believe that it should be recognized that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of its budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 M€) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. In general, the rule of booking 5-10% of the budget/funding may create problems funding the technical activities dealing with development of the FI-WARE platform.
The 5-10% is a maximum figure – we had examples in the working document of actual figures that were more in the range of 3% but in any case you haggle this with your project officer.
* Regarding mandate of Project Coordinators as described in section 4.2, particularly the paragraph saying: "PrCs have the responsibility to discuss proposals for SB decisions in their project in good time and to get the mandate from their consortium to to discuss, negotiate and decide on the SB agenda items.". We propose to replace it by "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures involving all project partners and get the necessary mandate, together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium, to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB"
NO – this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don’t need to hide behind recommendations.
Besides this, there are a number of points about which no agreement has not yet been reached. Therefore, we would like to describe such disagreements:
* There is no agreement regarding prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement. SAP, IBM and maybe Thales object using the DoW as a mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the Collaboration Agreement, such as changes in the governance model. Others like Telefonica will agree that the DoW prevails and therefore introducing changes in the DoW could be seen as a way to make some fast-track amendments to the Collaboration Agreement, overall with regards to changes that do not break the spirit of the Collaboration Agreement. We would kindly ask the EC to clarify their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. We suggest that any prevalence rule should be explicitly made in the document that prevails, particularly in the governance model document.
There does not need to be agreement here – the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles – many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work.
* Creation of an EIB. SAP needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Their concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. IBM prefers to continue the discussion on this point prior to deciding. Thales' position is also not final. Some partners like NSN didn't object but asked for a clarification regarding the 2 Million rule. Rest of partners seem to agree with the inclusion of this body with a role as described in the latest governance model drafts.
Text included as proposed by Thales to clarify the status and antitrust nature of the EIB.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo Hierro
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and 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
On 26/02/13 11:50, David Kennedy wrote:
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.
Geschäftsführer (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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más 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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130305/1349e7c9/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy