Dear all, unfortunately there is a combination of matters of principle, of tactics in achieving our goals, and of legal or bureaucratic constraints. In short emails it is very difficult for any of us to convince each other because of different background knowledge (and different opinions of principles). Although I am very angry at the "non-transparent" way that ETSI Board is handling the ToR, I truly believe that the deletion of the "contentious" sentences will not affect our intended manner of working. Therefore, I really urge everyone to consider accepting the proposed deletion of sentences, without applying new ones which try to achieve the same message by other wording. We tried that latter tactic already, and achieved wording completely congruent to ETSI policy, but still it only resulted in delays. I apologise for that. Let us agree to start the work now, by accepting the edits ... the result will be a Specification (or even sooner, a Draft Specification) which any and all of us can try to get (pieces of) contributed into software projects which have different rules on IPR than ETSI. ETSI ISG will simply offer us a forum for getting results faster ... once we start. best regards Lindsay PS: In reply to Juanjo's comments, regarding avoiding what are sometimes called "submarine patents", we should work together in the next period to handle the total situation. The CIM topic, and the NGSI work, has been ongoing for many years and it is highly likely that a number of patents on general ideas exist pre-dating even the FIWARE work. Companies can be prepared to wait a long time before claiming license fees because the initial "cost" of creating the patent is a "sunk cost". Nothing we write in the ToR can prevent such "old" patents impacting our work, or indeed "new" patents popping up. Our job in the ISG CIM can include however creating an ecosystem which is prepared to react quickly, publicly and jointly so as to avoid being held to ransom. The more cooperation partners we draw in, the easier that will be. The sooner we start, the better we know what needs to be considered. External organisations can also be called in to do their part in lobbying, once there is an ISG Spec to "point to". ________________________________________ 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: Sonntag, 18. Dezember 2016 14:21 To: Mulligan, Catherine E A; Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS; Franck Le Gall; RAES Serge IMT/OLPS (serge.raes at orange.com) Cc: fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org Subject: Re: Next step? (a) wait (b) delete sentences (c) attack --> agree on email for Monday? Hi, BTW and for your knowledge and the knowledge of the rest of the team. One of the reasons why the ETSI team (and Enrico Scarrone) suddenly changed their position were because precisely the EC intervened. The EC was well aware of our discussions and the point at which they were blocked (due to the argument on overlapping with Smart M2M). You may guess how they got noticed. And, as far as I know, it was after a long conversation between Emilio and the ETSI people and Enrico when things changed. We may live thinking that the call on November 22 went so smooth because we made a rather good argument of our points during the call. But I tell you that there were things that happened before and behind the scenes. The intervention of the EC was crucial, stimulated by some of us. Given said that and what I have said in previous message I repeat that I'm happy to drop the "offending" statements provided that we introduce a mechanism by which organizations involved in the work of the ISG can declare that their contributions will not lead to claim of any essential patents. Best regards, -- 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/20161218/631800a1/attachment-0001.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy