Lindsay, next 3 days we are going to be unavailable due to the FIWARE Summit, but we will check email frequently. Thanks for your help with this. best From: <fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org> on behalf of Lindsay Frost <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu> Date: Monday 12 December 2016 at 14:38 To: "Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org" <Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org> Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] ETSI may want to "delete 2 sentences" from the ToR? - small status update, arranging call with Hermann on Tuesday 10am Dear all, here is a small update: Hermann is arranging a call tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10am CET together with the ETSI lawyer, Christian. Hermann seems not to have the details which Serge told us. I will fwd the telephone bridge details to all as soon as available, but attendance for everyone is perhaps not essential because I will simply try to find out what ETSI is currently officially thinking, then we can discuss "offline" how we want to react to that. 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 Lindsay Frost Sent: Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2016 21:17 To: Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org Subject: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] ETSI may want to "delete 2 sentences" from the ToR? Dear all, as you can see in the two emails below, Serge Raes kindly provided some additional feedback concerning ETSI discussions of our proposed ToR. Because of the urgency, I replied immediately with arguments showing why no changes are needed and asking for confirmation of what is the current official ETSI status. If my arguments are not accepted, we will find ourselves arguing semantics with lawyers ... never a good idea! In such a case, I have an idea which we might discuss by telephone call. But first let us wait for confirmation. 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: Lindsay Frost Sent: Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2016 21:10 To: 'serge.raes at orange.com'; HAMELIN Valerie SG/DJ Cc: Mulligan, Catherine E A; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; DANNO Vincent IMT/OLN; Franck Le Gall; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS Subject: RE: ToR being emailed to BoD now, so I already sent the FAQ to be part of the package --> "delete 2 sentences"? Importance: High Dear Serge, thank you for the email, which unfortunately only reached me on Sunday. I reply immediately because of the importance of your comments. I hope you or Valerie Hamelin can provide feedback Monday, and also say whether I may discuss the issues directly with Hermann Brand ? Firstly, it is important to let us know if the statements in your email represent an ETSI-internal consensus which will reach us eventually via an official email from Hermann Brand or other ETSI officer? I am a little uncertain because Hermann/Patrick/David were not on CC so maybe your email is "an early warning". Can you please confirm? Nothing is perfect in this world, and it might be that the ETSI Director General actually would accept the current language in the ToR because he knows necessary corrections can be applied at any time ? In that case, it would be just delaying the start of the CIM project to attempt further edits of the ToR. Please let us know if the views you noted below are likely to be communicated to us "officially" ? (If yes, then thank you very much for this early information.) Secondly, concerning the ToR text, it is not quite correct to write "2 sentences were added compared to earlier ToR drafts " ... we were requested to modify those paragraphs in line with ETSI wishes and we had believed we had succeeded in finding a consensus. However, apparently not ... Thirdly, the main point of course is the apparent "deviation with respect to the IPR Policy and Technical Working Procedures ". I understand you to refer to two formal issues: (1) constraints on operating procedures are to be kept in the ETSI TWP document and not in the ToR; (2) the two sentences apparently add constraints to ETSI IPR declaration rules and voting methods. Actually there are no additional constraints. When writing the two sentences, the founding partners did carefully analyse the ETSI Directives, and we consider that the two ToR sentences simply express in clear language the Annex 6 Section 3.1 "... to reduce the risk to ETSI, MEMBERS, and others applying ETSI STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, that investment in the preparation, adoption and application of STANDARDS could be wasted as a result of an ESSENTIAL IPR for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION being unavailable. " as well as Annex 6. 4.1 "Subject to Clause 4.2 below, each MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours, in particular during the development of a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION where it participates, to inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs in a timely fashion. In particular, a MEMBER submitting a technical proposal for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall, on a bona fide basis, draw the attention of ETSI to any of that MEMBER's IPR which might be ESSENTIAL if that proposal is adopted." The ToR sentence Nr.1 states that Members and Participants agree to define "timely" as "at the time of contribution", and sentence Nr. 2 makes the logical conclusion that Members and Participants would use such timely information (implicit is: to decide whether to possibly waste time on something covered by essential IPR). The only detectable difference to ETSI procedures is that the declaration and the discussion should be "up front" rather than potentially a year later when the Group Specification is reaching final review. This gain in time is absolutely congruent with the limited lifespan of an ISG. I hope that you and your colleagues will consider these arguments and let us know your opinions. Please let us know with whom we should pursue official discussions (since you are tied up in meetings) ? Thank you very much for your help! Lindsay Frost ________________________________________ 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: serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com> [mailto:serge.raes at orange.com] Sent: Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2016 10:11 To: Lindsay Frost; Mulligan, Catherine E A; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS; DANNO Vincent IMT/OLN; Franck Le Gall Cc: HAMELIN Valerie SG/DJ Subject: RE: ToR being emailed to BoD now, so I already sent the FAQ to be part of the package Importance: High Dear Colleagues, In this E-Mail, the contents of which have been discussed with Gilles and Vincent on Friday and which should have reached you by Friday 9/12/2016 at 14h00, I wanted to share with you some critical remarks following a discussion on Thursday 8/12 evening with Dirk Weiler, Chairman of the ETSI IPR Special Committee and also Chairman of the Board, Christian Loyau, ETSI Legal Director, and myself in my capacity of Vice-Chairman of the ETSI IPR Special Committee, regarding the current approval process of the Terms of Reference for the creation of a new ISG on Context Information Management (CIM). Indeed, 2 sentences were added compared to earlier ToR drafts, which introduce a deviation with respect to the IPR Policy and Technical Working Procedures (TWP) currently in force. It is hereby proposed to suppress any such deviation, as there shall be no deviation from the ETSI Directives (attached here for reference/convenience) in the creation of any ISG, i.e. it is expressly forbidden. The attached document « 160901 draft of ETSI ISG proposal for cross-cutting Context Information revised HB with revs.docx » proposed for acceptance by ETSI Board and Director General contains in its subclause 3.1, Phase 2 (normative), the fact that Group Specifications will be produced. While it is understood that Data Models cannot be protected by patent rights, API may be subject to patent rights, in the absolute theory. API contemplated by the CIM ISG seems however very minimalist, in order to store and retrieve, modify (including add or delete), which are the basic operations that one can think of, which are unlikely IMHO to be subject to currently alife patents, as these operations are performed for more than 20 years in the IT (or ICT) industry. There may be other API which the CIM ISG may wish to specify in Phase 2, but since I lack visibility, I may not be in the best position to offer further advice/opinion on how best to handle these additional API at this time. The issue is that in both the above document and the related FAQ (FAQ 4), attached for reference, “FAQ concerning proposed ETSI ISG CIM 20161130.docx”, there is an express deviation from the ETSI IPR Policy that the CIM ISG cannot impose on its participants as the ETSI IPR Policy is to be taken as it is for all technical work undertaken under ETSI. The “offending” 2 sentences are : “In order to maximize the acceptance of the specifications produced, and ease collaboration with open source initiatives supporting the specifications, ETSI ISG CIM Members and Participants agree to declare at the time of making a contribution if they believe that implementing the contribution as a mandatory feature would necessarily infringe on a granted patent or filed patent application of their company. The CIM ISG would then take an informed decision whether to accept the contribution.” The first sentence defines and imposes an additional obligation on the time at which an IPR Declaration shall be made, which does not exist in the IPR Policy. It also raises the question whether Phase 2 and any Group Specifications may contain any normative (mandatory) features, subject to ESSENTIAL IPR as defined in subclause 15.6 and 15.7 of the IPR Policy [Annex 6 of the ETSI Directives, attached for convenience/reference]. The second sentence directly impacts on the governance of the CIM ISG, in contradiction to the ETSI Directives. The CIM ISG will take any decision as defined in the ETSI Directives and further defined in the working procedures of this particular ISG under subclause 3.6 Detailed deviations from the ETSI Technical Working Procedures (TWP). It is hereby proposed to remove entirely these 2 sentences as (1) materially not applicable to CIM ISG and (2) the decision-making process is already defined in the TWP and its allowed deviations. It is further proposed to amend the FAQ document as appropriate to address the above changes, i.e. remove entirely FAQ 4. The goal of FAQ 4 (i.e. notify the existence of any known IPR) is met by subclauses 4.1 (in particular the word “timely”) and 6.bis mandating the use of the Form, and by subclause 9.2.3 for the copyrights when making a SOFTWARE (as defined in subclause 15.14 of the IPR Policy) contribution. Any comment welcome. Please note that I am practically unavailable these days because I am chairing the NGMN IPR Forum meeting which I am hosting in our new offices in Chatillon, just returning from a 4-days Vice-Chairing the ETSI IPR SC meeting in Sophia Antipolis. I copy Valerie Hamelin, our Legal/IP Attorney, in these exchanges, but Valerie is participating to the same meetings as the Orange Delegate. Best regards, Serge Serge RAES, Intellectual Property & Standardization Senior Manager Orange IMT/OLPS/IPL/COPIN Room 1E-4-80B 44, avenue de la Republique F-92320 Chatillon France Tel : +33 1 5739 6007 Fax : +33 1 49 65 09 27 (formerly +33 1 4529 6560) serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com> De : 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] De la part de Lindsay Frost Envoyé : mercredi 30 novembre 2016 16:09 À : Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org> Objet : [Fiware-oasc-etsi] fyi: ToR being emailed to BoD now, so I already sent the FAQ to be part of the package Dear all, I found out that Hermann is just now sending the ToR to ETSI Board, so I went ahead and sent him the FAQ to include it in his "package". Sorry I could not wait until 17:00. I noted it as "DRAFT" and that we (the CIM) will use it for our intended "outreach activities" as soon as possible. Thanks to those who responded already, Lindsay From: Lindsay Frost Sent: Mittwoch, 30. November 2016 15:44 To: 'Hermann Brand' Subject: RE: Could you please confirm the ToR was emailed to BoD (at latest by close of business today)? + FAQ attached Importance: High Dear Hermann, thank you! I attach a FAQ which I prepared today and which I release on my own responsibility as a draft. Please include it with the ToR. I hope it helps. best wishes Lindsay From: Hermann Brand [mailto:Hermann.Brand at etsi.org] Sent: Mittwoch, 30. November 2016 15:26 To: Lindsay Frost Subject: RE: Could you please confirm the ToR was emailed to BoD (at latest by close of business today)? Ongoing. Will happen in the next hour. Br, H From: Lindsay Frost [mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu] Sent: 30 November 2016 3:08 PM To: Hermann Brand <Hermann.Brand at etsi.org<mailto:Hermann.Brand at etsi.org>>; Patrick Guillemin <Patrick.Guillemin at etsi.org<mailto:Patrick.Guillemin at etsi.org>>; David Boswarthick <David.Boswarthick at etsi.org<mailto:David.Boswarthick at etsi.org>> Subject: Could you please confirm the ToR was emailed to BoD (at latest by close of business today)? Dear Hermann, AFAIK the ETSI Board have not yet received a copy of the draft ToR ? Could you please check and ensure they get their copy today so they have a chance to read it in advance? Thank you for confirming the status, 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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, 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, 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-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161212/8fc86eb5/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy