[Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4

[Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)]

Dear Juanjo,

I have one comment on the following text:


  *   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.
Comment Werner:

·         The Steering Board has no decision power and can also not get such decision power on its own. The feedback from the consortia is essential and the coordinator has to act based on the support of his consortium.

·         I understand that the Collaboration Agreement is lower in the hierarchy of documents and is below the Grant Agreement. It would make sense to remove the hint to the Collaboration Agreement.

·         However, we have to consider Annex II, Article II.2: (Peter explained in his mail that Annex II is overwriting Annex I and therefore Annex II has to be respected by all stakeholders)

II.2. Organisation of the consortium and role of coordinator

1.      All the beneficiaries together form the consortium, whether or not they enter into a separate written consortium agreement. Beneficiaries are represented towards the Commission by the coordinator, who shall be the intermediary for any communication between the Commission and any beneficiary, with the exceptions foreseen in this grant agreement.


2.      The financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the project shall be paid to the coordinator who receives it on behalf of the beneficiaries. The payment of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation on payments.



3.      The coordinator shall:

a)      administer the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] regarding its allocation between beneficiaries and activities, in accordance with this grant agreement and the decisions taken by the consortium. The coordinator shall ensure that all the appropriate payments are made to the other beneficiaries without unjustified delay;

b)      keep the records and financial accounts making it possible to determine at any time what portion of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] has been paid to each beneficiary for the purposes of the project;

c)      inform the Commission of the distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] and the date of transfers to the beneficiaries, when required by this grant agreement or by the Commission;

d)     d) review the reports to verify consistency with the project tasks before transmitting them to the Commission;

e)      monitor the compliance by beneficiaries with their obligations under this grant agreement.

The coordinator may not subcontract the above-mentioned tasks.


4.      Beneficiaries shall fulfil the following obligations as a consortium:

a)      provide all detailed data requested by the Commission for the purposes of the proper administration of this project;

b)      carry out the project jointly and severally vis-à-vis [the Union] [Euratom], taking all necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that the project is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of this grant agreement.

c)      make appropriate internal arrangements consistent with the provisions of this grant agreement to ensure the efficient implementation of the project. When provided for in Article 1.4 these internal arrangements shall take the form of a written consortium agreement (the "consortium agreement"). The consortium agreement governs inter alia the following:

                                                        i.            the internal organisation of the consortium including the decision making procedures;

                                                      ii.            rules on dissemination and use, and access rights;

                                                    iii.            the distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom];

                                                    iv.            the settlement of internal disputes, including cases of abuse of power;

                                                      v.            liability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries.

d)     engage, whenever appropriate, with actors beyond the research community and with the public in order to foster dialogue and debate on the research agenda, on research results and on related scientific issues with policy makers and civil society; create synergies with education at all levels and conduct activities promoting the socioeconomic impact of the research.

e)      allow the Commission to take part in meetings concerning the project.


·         According to Annex II the coordinator has an administrative role.

·         The heavily debated word "monitor" is coming from Annex II and not from the Collaboration Agreement.

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<mailto:werner.mohr at nsn.com>

Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / 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: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:21 PM
To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4

Hi all,

  Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy.   Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally.   However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments.

  Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement.   Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same.

  I hope you agree.   Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo






-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4

Date:

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100

From:

Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

To:

David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>

CC:

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>, "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>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>


On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote:


  *   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.

  Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us.   Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key.   Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress.   Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB.

  Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG.   Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist.




  *   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.


  If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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".

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo


________________________________

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130308/e4315179/attachment.html>