Dear Juanjo and all, I agree to the points listed by Juanjo in his email below, but request some clarifications (inserted in green in the proposal below) which make very explicit that a royalty-free license _is_ granted (no extra step needed) for a contributor's IPR which is considered essential to the specific CIM API and CIM Data Model specifications. The green insertions are retrieved from my proposal sent to Juanjo and all at 15.08.2016 18:52. They are designed to make it markedly easier for me to obtain corporate approval (and probably also helps other Members get approval) by making explicit what license is granted for what purpose. I emphasize that this adaption is made in the shortest possible time, without benefit of legal advice, in the hope that it satisfies all parties. LINDSAY'S PROPOSED CLARIFICATIONS IN GREEN (also in attached change-tracked file). Work in the CIM ISG will follow an implementation-driven approach, as opposed to a “design by committee” approach, and it will be focused on agile delivery. In order to maximize the acceptance of the specifications to be produced and to ease collaboration with open source initiatives supporting the specifications, CIM ISG Members and Participants (see section 3.2) will agree that any of their IPR contained in their contributions to the CIM API or CIM Data Model specifications which is considered essential[1] thereto will be released royalty-free to implementers of those specifications. As a result, Group Specifications developed within the CIM ISG will be public and royalty-free, respecting the ETSI IPR policy. At the same time, their development will be backed by experience obtained through open source implementations. Assuming that this fulfils everyone's objectives, I have ATTACHED A VERSION with the (tracked) changes based on the version Juanjo sent at 16/08/16 08:22 below. I propose that Juanjo send this version to ETSI with the accompanying email text written by Juanjo in his email below. best wishes Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org [mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 16. August 2016 16:06 To: Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission Views? On 16/08/16 08:22, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear Lindsay, all, I have produced the attached draft based on the input from Lindsay but with some amendments: * change of ordering: I believe we should first elaborate on the required model and then second state we understand this complies with the ETSI IPR policy * I dropped the reference to RAND-Z because, based on Wikipedia, such model would require that any implementer of the spec has to still ask for permission to the companies releasing their essential patents under royalty-free ... check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing#Related_licenses. I believe this is not practical (how would you organize asking for such permission? what if a original contributor releasing essential patents no longer keeps engaged in the results?). * I dropped the reference to FIWARE and EC projects and make the aim at enabling compatibility with open source initiatives more global Please let me know if you would agree with this version or you have some comments. Regarding the proposed text for the body of the mail to be send to the ETSI team, I propose something like the following (comments are welcome): <body> Dear ETSI team, Please find attached a revised version of the ToR based on the version you previously circulated. We accepted most of the changes you introduced but decided to keep the reference to FIWARE NGSI or DCAT-AP as starting points in the description of the scope of activities. We also distinguished between physical and virtual meetings regarding description of how meetings are governed in sections and introduced some changes we hope are agreeable here and there. They are highlighted under change control. One important matter we wanted to highlight is the public and royalty-free nature of specifications produced under the umbrella of the ISG (see paragraph on section 3.1 "Scope"). This way, specifications would follow the principles of those APIs and common information models specifications that have been most widely adopted as industry standards. This is necessary to foster adoption of results of the proposed ISG in the market. On the other hand, we understand this is compatible with the ETSI IPR policy as a specific materialization of FRAND conditions. Nevertheless, we seek for your advice regarding what could be the best and more accurate wording and are open to setup a confcall if needed. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro </body> Best regards, -- Juanjo On 15/08/16 18:58, Lindsay Frost wrote: Dear Juanjo, attached is a DOC file for your convenience with the same changes which I just (for reasons of transparency) sent out on the fiware-oasc-etsi mailing list. Of course you may desire/propose different wording. This version is formulated so that hopefully all FIWARE corporate partners will have no trouble agreeing to it (since it expresses the FIWARE approach). /Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com] Sent: Montag, 15. August 2016 17:01 To: Lindsay Frost; franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com<mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com> Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Martin Bauer; Stefan Gessler; Juanjo Hierro Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission My intention is to circulate within the list the text of the mail I would submit to ETSI, which would accompany the draft of the ToR we have already agreed. Once we agree on that text, I would submit it to ETSI, but not before. As mentioned in some of my previous messages, this is a fundamental point on which we have to show a common front. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. As per recent discussions, the text would explain that the organizations submitting the ToR consider that produced specifications have to be public and royalty-free. Otherwise, we will fail in fostering the adoption of the specifications as an industry standard. We would make the argument that APIs and information models used today conform to that model. Note that I refer to "produced" specifications. Therefore, existing specifications we may want to adopt would follow whatever terms they comply with. I would explain that we believe this is compatible with ETSI policies because "public and royalty-free" is a special case of FRAND terms but seek for their advise on how to express it. We want to prevent that contributors introduce material subject to royalties in the specification through the backdoor or based on voting (we want to avoid a scenario of companies that reach majority and may agree to introduce material subject to royalties because there is nothign in the ToR that prevents that to happen). Again, it's about seeking the advise of ETSI regarding the wording ... not seeking the advice of ETSI about whether we should go for royalty-free or not. So in short, if we have all of us understood things the same way, answer is (a). I'm now going to be disconnected for about 3-4 hours. Then I will draft the text to circulate in the list. If you have time to prepare some input for such draft, I'm more than happy to consider it as the initial text I would work with (and even if describing the above, I would be happy not to touch it). Best regards, -- Juanjo On 15/08/16 15:22, Lindsay Frost wrote: Dear Juanjo, I understand your position, but I do not understand your intended next step. Do you plan to (a) contact ETSI as previously discussed and as assumed by anyone reading fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org> (b) wait for everyone to agree with you, (c) give up, (d) something else? Thanks for clarifying /Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com] Sent: Montag, 15. August 2016 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost; franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com<mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com> Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Martin Bauer; Stefan Gessler Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission Hi, I believe that royalty-free is required for the cities regarding common information models. That is indeed one of the principles setup by the OASC initiative. I also believe there is no other way regarding common information model. A different story is that we will have to live with licenses associated to information models we aim at reusing but sure they would have some sort of royalty-free approach. Cheers, -- Juanjo On 15/08/16 10:04, Lindsay Frost wrote: Dear Juanjo and Franck, part of my concern is that the current text " Group Specifications developed within the CIM ISG will be public and royalty-free." is placed so as to include every spec of the ISG, before even knowing what will go in them. That makes it harder to get corporate agreement. In previous drafts the reference to royalty-free was made in the deliverables list, exactly and only for the CIM API. This makes a difference for me because NEC already agreed to that in the context of FIWARE so I do not expect any problems getting agreement again. Therefore, if the "royalty-free" is put only into the deliverable for CIM API itself, NEC will support it. Furthermore, ETSI should see the logic if an extra footnote explaining "needed for dissemination and deployment via the large FIWARE community and other EC projects" is added. Of course the FRAND aspects from OMA still exist, but it is the best one can do. best wishes Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com] Sent: Samstag, 13. August 2016 12:16 To: Lindsay Frost; franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com<mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>; Ernoe Kovacs; Martin Bauer; Stefan Gessler Cc: Juanjo Hierro Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission Importance: High Dear Franck and NEC team, Please note that I'm not sending this to the whole list. There are also some practicalities based on which we need to go for "royalty-free". We should go for it because we want that the CIM API relies on the FIWARE NGSI Restful binding specs produced under the FIWARE initiative and those specs are under a "royalty-free" license. I don't see any practical way we can rely on a spec that is "royalty-free" without establishing that the derivated spec (the CIM API spec under ETSI) is going to be also royalty-free. That would mean taking pieces of the FIWARE specs and using them breaking the license if I'm not wrong. Of course, if we use this argumentation, I'm afraid that some members of the ETSI team would love it because it would become an argument to drop out anything that has to do with NGSI and transform the ISG into something that starts "from the scratch" (they would argue that "more openly", I would say that then delaying the whole process 1-2 years and producing something linked to FRAND terms that would never fly). Note that on our side, still the major argument is that we believe that API specs that are not royalty-free will never win the battle for becoming de-facto standards (at the end of the day, only those standards that become de-facto, therefore are widely used, are the winners). It will threaten potential implementors, therefore adopters (who will have doubts the API will be widely supported by platform providers). When the Googles or Amazons arrive with an API that does the same but is public and royalty-free, that would be end of the story. Our only chance to success in this battle is coming early with a royalty-free spec. So, if we want to push for the adoption of NGSI as basis (this is needed to arrive early to the market) and lower the barriers of adoption, we have to argue that public and "royalty-free" is a must, and it should be to minimize barriers of adoption. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 13/08/16 11:59, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear Lindsay, all, I would agree with highlighting the word "and royalty-free" and even highlight the topic in the body of the mail to send. This is an important matter and we have to make ETSI clear what we pretend. However, we don't agree this is a topic about which we should "ask for advice". If we seek for advice, ETSI may come saying that they would advice specs are not royalty-free and then what? I believe that we shall highlight this matter and point out that we understand that "public and royalty-free" regarding specs will comply with ETSI IPR, but we want to confirm this with them. We should also elaborate on the rationale for that. Again, we will by no chance be successfull in the market if we end up producing API specs that are not public and royalty-free. This is the principle that any relevant body involved in specifications of open standard APIs adopt (W3C, OMG, ...). Nothing to say about APIs that become de-facto standards relying on the fact that their development is bound to open source initiatives (which, regarding de-facto standards, is actually a trend). For the avoidance of doubts, the scenario we want to avoid is that any organization joins as member or participant, starts to contribute to the spec, and then suddenly surprise all of us claiming licensing rights (i.e., payment of royalties) to potential implementors of the specs based on their contribution. And they would have the right to do so if specs are expected to be bound to FRAND terms (i.e., ambiguous enough regarding payment of royalties). This would kill immediately the chances of adoption which is our ultimate goal. You mention that "The founding members have reasoning for and agains (royalty-free)" ... may you elaborate on the reasoning against and how would you envision handling the mentioned risk? Best regards, -- Juanjo On 12/08/16 15:20, Lindsay Frost wrote: Dear Juanjo, let me be clear, NEC is not for or against "royalty-free", of itself, but there are many practical issues. We would like to see the position of ETSI clarified. Therefore I ask you to follow through with the suggestion of Franck, Cathy and myself to send the ToR to ETSI, with the words "and royalty-fee" highlighted, and ask ETSI for their view on including that text or not. I attach the previous discussed version, which I sent to all at 11.08.2016 12:31, but now with the markups accepted and only "and royalty-free" highlighted (with a comment box "There is concern about the practical/legal issues of including “royalty-free” for an ISG. The founding members have reasoning for and against. The advice/comment of ETSI is sought.". If you agree Juanjo, you can simply send the attachment within an appropriate email. ** continuing the discussion ** There are some more factors to mention in our discussion based on your last email: (1) ISG CIM will use NGSI, an OMA spec published under FRAND. Therefore a large part of the ISG spec can NOT be guaranteed royalty-free. (2) FIWARE intensively uses OMA-NGSI, under FRAND rules, so even users of FIWARE have some risk when implementing FIWARE GEs. FIWARE guarantees that the _code_ will not be subject to fees, but nobody can guarantee that no IPR exists behind the use of the system. (3) It appears that "royalty-free" was deleted from the list of planned deliverables, possibly by Herman.B?... but I cannot find the reasoning behind that. It would be good to know. best wishes Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com] Sent: Freitag, 12. August 2016 13:59 To: Lindsay Frost; franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com<mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>; fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org> Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission We are not talking about open source here. We are not talking about implementation (products) We are talking about API specs. Tell me about any two open standard API specs that are widely adopted in the market and are not public and royalty-free. Your reference to IETF I guess is not applicable (maybe IETF goes for FRAND terms regarding certain network protocols, I don't know). Royalty-free is a specific case of FRAND (there is no more Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory license to potential implementers :-). Therefore, it doesn't go against ETSI legal framework. It actually develops it making it clear that public and royalty-free is the option adopted for API specs. Again, it is about going against the world or not. If we go for API specifications that will require payment of licenses by potential implementers, then we simply are not going to succeed in the market. Google or Amazon or even W3C will arrive with an API overlapping with ours that it is public and royalty-free (they know this is the only and common practice that will be widely adopted and they know how to bring differentiation in the implementation instead of the API specs) and that will be the end of the story. In my honest opinion, if ETSI impedes to produce public and royalty-free API specifications, then we shall try to push our stuff in other bodies like W3C. Maybe it could be more difficult in the beginning, and certainly frustrating because some of us would like to see European standard bodies taking a lead in global API open standards, but it may be more fruitful in the end. FIWARE API specs are public and royalty-free, because partners agreed on that and the EC also confirmed this was a requirement. I guess you don't need to go for approval within NEC because you are already complying with that rule. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 12/08/16 10:41, Lindsay Frost wrote: Dear Juanjo, dear Franck, I welcome Franck's suggestion to seek ETSI advice. NEC collaborates in many open-source projects but each special case has to go up through 2 committees for approval. If Juanjo would highlight the text "and royalty-free" in the ToR, and request ETSI feedback, that would help. Dear Juanjo, (a) Regarding your question re open defacto standards that are not royalty-free ... see IETF. (b) all 5 of the ISG ToRs which I checked simply cite ETSI IPR policy. (c) Vincent from Orange advised in an email of 14.03.2016 " Last, mentioning Royalty-Free specifications should be deleted as the existing ETSI legal framework should apply." best wishes Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com<mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com> [mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com] Sent: Freitag, 12. August 2016 09:18 To: Lindsay Frost; fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>; Juanjo Hierro Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission Hello As I said, the best is to ask advice to ETSI on that topic. They have been working on IPR and standardisation related issues for years. and they will be the best positioned to quickly tell us how to formulate that in-line with their rules. So I suggest to send any version of the ToR that we have, asking them to reformulate the IPR section to include the royalty free part. kind regards Franck -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>> To: Lindsay Frost <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu<mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>>, "fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>" <fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>> Sent: ven., 12 août 2016 5:52 Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission This is not acceptable to us. Precisely, what we want to avoid is that companies join the group and introduce elements in the specs they will later be able to ask royalties for. Besides this, no API that claims to be open has specifications that are not royalty-free. Specifications of Open APIs, by definition, are public and royalty-free. Those companies that pretend to create a de-facto API standard claiming royalties to potential implementers of the specs will simply fail. Could you give me any example of an open de-facto standard API that is not not public and royalty-free? All the W3C or OMG specs, to cite two examples are public and royalty-free. If ETSI imposes that API specs cannot be public and royalty-free, then ETSI is the wrong place to standardize APIs. I rather hope this is not the case. Note, btw, that the EC very soon made it clear that FIWARE specs must be public and royalty-free (besides it added there should be an open source reference implementation, but that is not the point in question here). I doubt also that the EC would give up that requirement. Looking for you feedback. Note this is a cornerstone topic. We have to agree in a common position here. I won't send a ToR without this issue getting crystal clear. Cheers! -- Juanjo On 11/08/16 12:30, Lindsay Frost wrote: Dear Juanjo and all, attached is the version Juanjo sent, cleaned up, but with the two changes we have been discussing highlighted in change-tracking. Regarding the FRAND discussions, I read the arguments which Franck sent at 11.08.2016 01:07 and I can imagine that writing "royalty-free" will raise additional difficulties which we do not need at this time. Perhaps we could compromise on the following paragraph, which is still attractive I believe for Smart Cities and other Participants: Work in the CIM ISG will follow an implementation-driven approach, as opposed to a “design by committee” approach, and it will be focused on agile delivery. Group Specifications developed within the CIM ISG will be public. The ISG CIM aims to re-use established specifications where appropriate, which may mean referencing specifications under FRAND conditions. When that is the case, readers shall be notified. The development will be backed by experience obtained through open source implementations. This also avoids that existing ETSI members, who want to join the ISG, have to go back to their IPR Policy Departments and get a special approval for the difference to ETSI ipr policy (something I was not looking forward towards). If that is acceptable to all, then just hit "accept all changes" and the document is done. Discussion welcome of course! best wishes, Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org> [mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Donnerstag, 11. August 2016 08:03 To: fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org> Subject: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Revised version of ToR ready for submission Hi all, Please find attached the revised version of the ToR which I believe would be ready for submission. I used the latest version circulated by Cathy which integrated the previous comments by Lindsay and essentially performed the following actions: * I fixed the paragraph on the public and royalty-free nature of specs, with the text I suggested with which Lindsay also agreed. * I rescued comments I had introduced in the version sent by Hermann which Lindsay had accepted them and therefore didn't appear as highlighted with revision marks :-) I hope I didn't miss any ... Please confirm this version would be ok with you. As mentioned in a previous mail, I will be traveling to USA departing on 12:00pm CET today. Therefore, you have the whole day to review the document and I'll check your comments in the evening/tonight from the hotel. If I don't hear about any objection by then, I will sent the document to ETSI. Best regards, -- Juanjo ______________________________________________________ Coordinator and Chief Architect, FIWARE platform IoT Unit, Telefónica email: juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com> twitter: @JuanjoHierro You can follow FIWARE at: website: http://www.fiware.org twitter: @FIWARE facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] As defined in ETSI IPR Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20160816/73aae62b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 160815 draft of ETSI ISG proposal for cross-cutting Context Information Management CIM standards - comments from HB_DB - revised by CIM partners_LF3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 671103 bytes Desc: 160815 draft of ETSI ISG proposal for cross-cutting Context Information Management CIM standards - comments from HB_DB - revised by CIM partners_LF3.docx URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20160816/73aae62b/attachment.docx>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy