[Fiware-oasc-etsi] Next step? (a) wait (b) delete sentences (c) attack --> agree on email for Monday?

[serge.raes at orange.com]

Dear Colleagues,

This is exactly what has been explained in the 2 E-Mails below. Nothing prevents the Members (and others) to believe in what those sentences mean for the Project. But such kind of text was never provided in Terms of Reference: as you understand, they do not fit in.

So, let us get rid of them completely, as per Lindsay’s and Cathy’s suggestion, because it does not harm.

It is not useful/legally sound to try to either paraphrase or to emphasize anything that is written in the ETSI Directives.

Have a nice week-end.

Best regards,

Serge

De : Mulligan, Catherine E A [mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk]
Envoyé : samedi 17 décembre 2016 22:47
À : Lindsay Frost <lindsay.frost at neclab.eu>; Juanjo Hierro (juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com) <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>; Ernoe Kovacs <ernoe.kovacs at neclab.eu>; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <josemanuel.canterafonseca at telefonica.com>; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS <gilles.privat at orange.com>; Franck Le Gall <franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>; RAES Serge IMT/OLPS <serge.raes at orange.com>
Cc : fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
Objet : Re: Next step? (a) wait (b) delete sentences (c) attack --> agree on email for Monday?


Delete sentences.

While we can have a go at the board right now we need to look like good community members.

ETSI has IPR rules.  They won't want to bend those because it sets a precedent.

Best,
Cathy

Skaffa Outlook för Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>


On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:45 PM +0100, "Lindsay Frost" <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu<mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>> wrote:
Dear all,

No news, therefore I need to ask your views on the next step.


(a)    Wait
Not an option really, because of a huge gap over Christmas. We need to react during Monday.


(b)   Delete sentences
It seems clear that approval would be provided if we delete some more "contentious" sentence(s).
The "worst" one seems to be the one I mark red below. The blue one is also not much loved.
Neither sentence has any legally binding consequences; they simply make clear that we intend to
be fast, transparent and avoid "submarine patents". My proposal is to delete BOTH sentences
and get on with the job of doing CIM, as fast and transparently as possible. Deleting both is maybe
not necessary, but who knows?, and I feel no inclination just now to write that ETSI facilitates "agile
and efficient".

What are your views on this? At the end of the email is a draft email for review.

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 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.


(c)    Attack

I believe ETSI Board could be criticized by the EC for their attacks on our text above, and NEC has already
pointed this out obliquely in a Board email citing a December report on SEP from the EC which finds ETSI slow
in getting IPR Declarations (compared to e.g. ISO). However apparently that observation just heated the
discussion on Friday. For sure if we make formal complaints AT THIS TIME it will move the whole ToR into
a delay "until the issues are all resolved". Therefore my recommendation is to "delete the sentences, under
protest" and consider at a later time if it is worth trying to re-educate the ETSI Board.

Please express your views.

DRAFT EMAIL

TO: ETSI Director General
Dear Luis Jorge Romero,
the founding members of the intended ISG CIM have heard that there is significant debate by the
ETSI Board concerning our emphasis on ETSI principles of transparency and timely declaration of
IPR, in the ToR paragraph below. If it will result in avoidance of further delays in the important
standardisation work, then we offer to completely retract those sentences, as shown (and as attached).

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 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.

Sincerely,
Lindsay Frost (NEC, proposed Convenor)

________________________________________
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 Lindsay Frost
Sent: Freitag, 16. Dezember 2016 10:41
To: Juanjo Hierro (juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>); Mulligan, Catherine E A; Ernoe Kovacs; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS; Franck Le Gall; RAES Serge IMT/OLPS (serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>)
Cc: Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
Subject: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] fyi: ETSI Board consulting period has been extended to close of business today 16.12.2016

Dear all,

I learned from NEC representative on the ETSI Board that the consultation
period has been extended to close of business today. I have asked him to
consider if he can find some supporting words which will encourage a
positive conclusion rather than enflame the debate again. Apparently the
issue of IPR is extremely sensitive and several ETSI members have
positions which - if touched in any way - lead to long and emotional debate.

I believe this does not reflect well on the good reputation of ETSI Board.

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/20161218/cfddc593/attachment-0001.html>