Hi, Since GSMA, TM Forum etc... all work with ETSI already with no problems I don't really understand your point about them no longer supporting this due to ETSI IPR rules. The two sentences have no impact - I think you are going to end up having a philosophical argument with yourself... which might be fun but not very productive. I'll wait to see what everyone else says and then perhaps we can take a vote to see how we proceed? Best, Cathy Skaffa Outlook för Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:26 AM +0100, "Juanjo Hierro" <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>> wrote: Giving up is not necessarily the way to solve problems. In the kindergarten, allowing the big boy to win all battles because he is stronger is not necessarily the best strategy. It may solve the issue in the first approach, that is clear, but may lead to serious problems in the long run ... and it was because you didn't solve things when they had to be solved. I know this by experience. We are talking about something rather serious. If we intend to backup the specs to be produced by the ISG by implementations in open source (e.g., through FIWARE or no matter what other open source project) on a timely basis to accelerate the go-to market we may be giving people the right to use a product royalty-free when the fact is that we could not. The company who had introduced the essential patent would be able to claim such patents to anyone in the world who might be using the open source reference implementation and, of course, they would be able to sue the open source initiative (i.e., FIWARE or whichever) for giving away royalty-free licenses on something that incorporates essential patents. Becoming an ETSI ISG is not a target goal per-se. What we want is an open, therefore public and royalty-free standard. Among other things because then it can be pushed by the EC in adoption of policies, etc. That is one goal and not the goal of having ETSI create a spec. If ETSI produces a spec with royalties it will never be adopted by the EC nor anyone else (e.g., NIST or the W3C). It may be well the case that organizations who have endorsed FIWARE NGSI (TM Forum or GSMA) would stop doing so. Therefore, It may indeed jeopardize the whole thing. That's why it is important and not a trivial question. I have proposed another alternative that should be considered more friendly with the IPR policies. Please take a look at that. Cheers, -- Juanjo On 18/12/2016 10:32, Mulligan, Catherine E A wrote: Hi, While I appreciate your point I strongly believe calling on the EC to give input to an ETSI discussion is like using a canon to solve a fight in a kindergarten. Also, it will set the wrong tone for our future work in ETSI - we will appear to be spoilt children who can't solve our own problems. We're not and those two sentences make no difference to our cause. We need to know when to fold 'em. Cheers, Cathy Skaffa Outlook för Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM +0100, "Juanjo Hierro" <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>> wrote: Dear all, I won't make any move without considering feedback from the EC. I believe they should be aware about the position of the ETSI Board and understand the risk of initiating a work where companies could introduce submarine patents. Our text doesn't go against the ETSI IPR policies, that is the fact. It simply introduces more warranties about what the ETSI intends to warrant which is that people know when there may be contributions leading to patent claims in the future. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 17/12/2016 22:47, Mulligan, Catherine E A wrote: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161218/577c668b/attachment-0001.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy