Dear Axel, My comments between lines ... On 18/07/12 10:18, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. · Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. We have forwarded your comments to our legal department and I hope we will get some answer tomorrow. However, let me point out the following: * Our intention was not propose this formula "for the future" but for being implemented now. We however, take note of your suggestion and will go for proposing a general formula in a future version of the DoW or the CA. * It may be right that it's only the EC who may reject justification of the efforts by the partners, but certainly we can workaround that issue by allowing any partner to justify whatever PMs they want in a given period but then stating in our report to the EC that TID doesn't agree with the justified costs and recommends the EC to reject them. This, combined with the fact that the signed CA establishes that we can retain interim payments, would allow us to achieve the effect we want to achieve. Be sure that it's not our willingness to penalize any partner. We hadn't proposed this measures if we hadn't detected the rist to fail in complying with the milestones we had agreed by end of June. BTW, I have to say that the measures have proven to be effective as you can see by reaction of all partners in last weeks/days. · Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. I included a link to a google docs document with a copy of the last draft of the Legal Notice agreed by the legal departments ... with two paragraphs in yellow whose inclusion was asked by some partners (i.e., the last agreed draft is what you have there without those paragraphs) ... Therefore, I already distributed a version of the last draft agreed as you requested. Besides this, I provided a summary of the only questions that I'm aware are under discussion. Therefore, you have access to all what is needed to start the discussion. Given said this, the intention is to launch a thread of discussion involving the identified partners. We can launch that thread of discussion attaching the latest draft of the legal notice in a first email. That is not an issue. · * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. The minutes are to capture what was discussed during the meeting ... not things that any member of the PCC may raise afterwards (despite they may be relevant to consider). I'm happy to discuss your proposal so what I'll do is to reply your message with cc to the PCC so that we can make progress on that discussion in a dedicated thread. · * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. It's fine to discuss this but I want to point out something from the very beginning ... the openess to external parties of the Open Innovation Lab was described in the DoW, which is part of the Grant Agreement and therefore is legally binding all partners. Indeed, as the EC has repeated us several times, that is the part of the contract that prevails over others like the Consortium Agreement. The EC has told us that signing a CA that contradicts what is in the DoW would be considered an error in the CA to be fixed. Anyways, I'll create a separate thread of discussion on this topic to avoid mixing discussions. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Please point to me what is there in the minutes that didn't capture the discussion. As said above, it's fine to launch additional discussions, but this has nothing to do with publishing minutes of a meeting, which has to reflect what has discussed in the meeting and nothing more. In that respect, the only changes that were made to the minutes after we closed the meeting was to fix a number of typos and summarize APs and DECs at the end of the minutes. Best regards, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com<mailto:axel.fasse at sap.com> www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20120719/33718cfb/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy