Dear all, to assist you in getting the Agreement signed:
Status:
you should all have received the email forwarded by me to fiware-oasc list at 19.12.2016 11:34 today
with the text and documents from Hermann for signing. I copy the email below and attach the documents
again to be sure. The ToR was not included from Hermann but I know that it was our last one which I sent
him 14.12.2016 11:14, which was also sent to the Board by Luis as a fyi at 08:31:11 GMT today. No worries there.
I have asked Hermann to send us a "all changes accepted" version for our records.
Your next steps:
The "ETSI SIG CIM Agreement for Members.docx" is the only one that needs concern the ETSI members
(TF, Orange, NEC and EGM, plus iMinds if they are available) who should be signing as soon as possible so that
the official start can be advertised by "Letter" from the ETSI Director General to all of ETSI.
In the attached version, which is 95% standard template, the first half is mainly admin stuff (and warnings not to
create costs!) however I draw your attention (and the attention of the person authorised by your company to sign it!)
to these bits. They should be no surprize, but they are the only points I consider at all remarkable:
(A)
12.1 Variation. Subject to the ETSI Directives and the Terms of Reference, this Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No variation (including any supplement, deletion or replacement, however effected) of this ISG Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing (which for this purpose, does not include e-mail) signed by or on behalf of each of the parties to this ISG Agreement.
(B)
3.6.3.1 Principles of decision making (TWP 1.7.1) //LF: contains additionally some of our ToR text related to reporting of meetings within 15 days, job for the chairman//
(C)
3.6.3.1.1 Voting during an Industry Specification Group Meeting (TWP 1.7.1.1) //LF: contains our rules for attending regularly so as to retain voting//
(D)
3.4 Duties and Rights of Members ... Any communication outside the ISG itself by the ISG Chairman and/or by the ISG CIM Members and ISG CIM Participants shall be made in coordination with the ETSI Secretariat. //LF: it is allowed to have our own opinion, and express it, but there are rules for pre-notifying and for not claiming to represent all of ETSI //
(E)
3.6.2.3 Documentation for an Industry Specification Group meeting (TWP 1.5.3) //LF: contains our "upload 72 hours before meeting" rule//
I am going to my printer now, collecting my 2 copies, tracking down our VP with a blue pen in my hand,
and hopefully getting the signed doc PDFd and emailed back to Hermann today ...
Best wishes!
Lindsay
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
EMAIL from Herman at 19.12.2016 11:17
Dear Lindsay,
Please find the ISG CIM Agreements for signature attached.
Please note that there is one editorial modification in the ISG Agreement for members compared to the version you checked. In Annex 4 , clause 3.6.1 I included a reference instead of the full text about participation fees of Participants. This avoids duplication of text and makes it easier to deal with modifications which only directly impact Participants in the future.
We now need 2 originally signed paper copies of Member Agreements from at least 4 founding members (sent to my address below, one originally countersigned paper copy will be sent back, one will be kept at ETSI). In order to accelerate the process we accept scanned pages 8 and 9 (signature page and identification page) of the Member Agreement.
Best wishes,
Hermann
Dr. Hermann Brand
Director - Innovation
ETSI - European Telecommunications Standards Institute
650 Route des Lucioles
06921 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS CEDEX
FRANCE
Telephone: + 33 (0)4 92 94 43 64
Mobile: + 33 (0)6 08 77 22 05
Fax: + 33 (0)4 93 65 47 16
Email: hermann.brand at etsi.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
________________________________________
Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
Sent: Montag, 19. Dezember 2016 13:30
To: Lindsay Frost; Mulligan, Catherine E A; Franck Le Gall; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS; serge.raes at orange.com; Ernoe Kovacs
Cc: fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
Subject: Re: CIM approved, but please wait for official. ORANGE board member should be informed.
Dear Lindsay,
Just to make sure ... when will we know definitively when the ISG has been approved?
I understand the approval has came with the old language regarding management of IPR policies ... is it correct or did we finally dropped out the "offensive" sentence?
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
On 19/12/2016 10:48, Lindsay Frost wrote:
> Dear all
> thank you for the extra inputs and discussions with some of you over
> the weekend.
>
> Hermann emailed me that the ToR is just approved now and he is
> preparing the official documents!
>
> From our past experience we should carefully wait and check them.
>
> I ask the colleagues in Orange if they could suggest to their Board
> member that IF there is reaction to the official news on the Board
> mailing list THEN Nick might express cautious support of this positive
> start to the work? BUT if nobody else comments then it is probably
> best to keep quiet also.
>
> I will make the same suggestion to the NEC member on the Board.
>
> More official news soon I hope.
> Lindsay
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 18.12.2016, at 22:31, "serge.raes at orange.com
> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>" <serge.raes at orange.com
> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Juanjo and Colleagues,
>>
>> The procedures exist in the IPR Policy, Guidelines and Forms. I
>> invite you all to consult with your in-house IP Counsel to explain
>> these texts and the voluntary nature of the Patent licensing
>> commitment. So, that condition is already met !
>>
>> By the way, nobody can be certain of anything when working on
>> technical specifications subject to patent rights (not to mention
>> copyrights) and no SDO can make sure that such technical work may not
>> be subject to 3^rd party rights exposure. That being said, let me
>> repeat that, as far as I understand from the ISG CIM scope of work, I
>> see no possibility to protect Data Models by patents and the basic
>> operations on such data is already well established as prior art many
>> decades ago.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Serge RAES,
>>
>> ETSI IPR Special Committee Vice-Chair
>>
>> *De :*Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 18 décembre 2016 22:14 *À :* Lindsay Frost
>> <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu <mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>>; Mulligan,
>> Catherine E A <c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk
>> <mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk>>; Ernoe Kovacs
>> <Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu <mailto:Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu>>; JOSE MANUEL
>> CANTERA FONSECA <josemanuel.canterafonseca at telefonica.com
>> <mailto:josemanuel.canterafonseca at telefonica.com>>; PRIVAT Gilles
>> IMT/OLPS <gilles.privat at orange.com
>> <mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>>; Franck Le Gall
>> <franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com
>> <mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>>; 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>
>> *Objet :* Re: Next step? (a) wait (b) delete sentences (c) attack -->
>> agree on email for Monday?
>>
>> Dear Lindsay and all,
>>
>> I'm fine dropping the conflicting sentences IF as proposed convenor
>> (and later I guess chairman of the ISG) you commit to establish a
>> procedure which will allow members and participants to the ISG to
>> declare that their contributions are going to be royalty-free (on a
>> voluntary basis). This way we will know in advance what are the
>> contributions we may consider safe, not only to be included in specs
>> but also to implement as open source, or we have to handle carefully
>> (probably not allowing the incorporation in the spec until certain
>> time is completed during which they have to declare whether they had
>> essential patents involved).
>>
>> Linday: Regarding your statement in your PS "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. ", let me share with you that one of the strongest
>> points in relying the work on the CIM API on OMA NGSI is precisely
>> that the OMA NGSI specs are free of claims on essential patents (I
>> personally review this point looking at the declaration of essential
>> patents published by OMA). That is, btw, one of the rationales
>> behind keeping OMA NGSI (and FIWARE NGSI as restful binding) as
>> starting point of our work. Going in other direction may be indeed
>> a risky exercise.
>>
>> I know that a rather relevant initiative in Europe (I can no
>> disclose more information, sorry ... but is not under the FIWARE
>> umbrella) is now in serious problem because they has been threaten by
>> a company that argues they have essential patents on the technical
>> vision advocated by the initiative ... I would argue that the vision
>> is not so rocket-science and therefore essential patents cannot be
>> claimed, but the mere fact that they may have to solve that in courts
>> will for sure be rather cumbersome. We hope that we learn from
>> those lessons and stick to the plan of relying on OMA NGSI (with all
>> relevant enhancements provided they are free of patents).
>>
>> BTW, the fact that OMA NGSI (and therefore FIWARE NGSI as restful
>> binding) are free of these problems should be something that should
>> be (and I guess/hope is) welcomed by OASC and relevant initatives in
>> other smart domains (agrifood, industry).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Juanjo
>>
>> On 18/12/2016 15:53, Lindsay Frost wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>)
>> *Cc:* fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
>> <mailto: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
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________
>>
>> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ETSI ISG CIM Agreement for Members 2016-12-19 final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 51324 bytes
Desc: ETSI ISG CIM Agreement for Members 2016-12-19 final.docx
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161219/166a0140/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ETSI ISG CIM Participant Agreement 2016-12-19 final.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 129024 bytes
Desc: ETSI ISG CIM Participant Agreement 2016-12-19 final.doc
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161219/166a0140/attachment-0001.doc>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy