Dear CIM partners, I believe we are at the finish line ... one more step! = Reply "Yes" to this email by 3pm Wednesday. ETSI (Hermann Brand and Christian Loyau) believe they have consensus from ALL parties in ETSI on the attached ToR. The requested change is highlighted below in section //2// and my analysis is in section //3//. Basically all our intentions are in, but using different wording. If none of you objects, I plan to write back as shown in section //1// below tomorrow (Wednesday 14.12) at 15:00 CET (or earlier if possible) saying that we accept in order to begin the work (but not because we agree with them!): //1// DRAFT RESPONSE I WILL SEND IF YOU AGREE: Dear Hermann, the CIM founding members agree to the proposed changes in the attached ToR, in order to achieve consensus on initiating the ISG CIM and to avoid further delay of this important work. Please accept our thanks for your hard work and please pass this version to the ETSI Director General. We hope for a positive decision as soon as possible, and I hope soon to begin organizing with you the first general meeting. best regards, Lindsay Frost (for the CIM founding members) //2// HERE ARE THE CHANGES TRACKED IN ATTACHED DOC (red is inserted text): (1) "Towards the end of Phase 1, joint workshops with ETSI TC SmartM2M, ETSI PP oneM2M and possibly other organizations will be organized to allow complementarity of specifications. " (2) "Group Specifications developed within the ETSI ISG CIM will be public and subject to ETSI IPR policy, especially concerning timely declaration. In order to facilitate agile and efficient standardization, to maximize the acceptance of the specifications produced, and to 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 ISG CIM would then take an informed decision whether to accept the contribution. will be encouraged during the specification process, including at the time of making a contribution, to declare if they believe that an ETSI IPR Declaration is necessary (in particular Clauses 4.1 and 6.1 but also to copyrights as addressed under Clause 9.2.3). Members and Participants are reminded that acting contrary to ETSI IPR policy and/or delaying timely declaration of IPR can only delay the successful completion of the specification(s), undermining a critical success factor for the ISG. Work in the ISG CIM will follow an implementation-driven approach, as opposed to a "design by committee" approach, and it will be focused on agile delivery. ISG CIM Members and ISG CIM Participants are encouraged to reference to implementations and to take such examples into account in deciding on details of the specification work." //3// ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGES (1) is asking us to invite oneM2M to the workshop around April timeframe, not a problem, we planned it anyway (2) is cutting out some text we copied from ETSI IPR Policy (which does not worry me since we reference it earlier) AND is cutting out "declare at the time of making a contribution" ... but in exchange it was possible to put in very similar text just afterwards " encouraged during the specification process, including at the time of making a contribution, to declare if they believe that an ETSI IPR Declaration is necessary" plus a clear statement that " delaying timely declaration of IPR can only delay the successful completion of the specification(s)," (3) even better, the text about " are encouraged to reference to implementations and to take such examples into account in deciding on details of the specification work" is untouched, which means our preference for pointing to external open source projects AND USING THAT IN OUR DECISION MAKING is intact :-) (4) Note: I did a file-comparison of the attached version with the previous one agreed by us and there are no extra significant changes (just a few typos and reformats). Therefore I believe we came out of it with all our intended procedures intact and as desired. We certainly can and will "encourage" contributors to declare IPR according to ETSI rules "including at the time of making a contribution" and we certainly will take account of existing implementations in our decision making. Please respond to this email with a clear Yes so we can proceed. Thank you! 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161213/9cb4ccb5/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BOARD(16)110_023a1r1_ISG_CIM_full_proposal.doc Type: application/msword Size: 771072 bytes Desc: BOARD(16)110_023a1r1_ISG_CIM_full_proposal.doc URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161213/9cb4ccb5/attachment-0001.doc>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy