Thanks Alex. We interpret that you are then in favor of sending an email to Arian regarding clarifying that the scope of what was prepared for the meeting was checkpoint 10 and that regarding checkpoint 11, only an "initial discussion" may take place ...
Any comments regarding the contents I were suggesting for the presentations that Arian had requested to initiate the discussion ?
I copy the fiware-pcc because I believe that it's more efficient if everyone is in the loop.
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
On 02/11/12 08:13, Alex Glikson wrote:
I agree that it is not very realistic to provide meaningful and well-organized feedback regarding checkpoint 11 over the weekend.
Regards,
Alex
From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To: jimenez at tid.es<mailto:jimenez at tid.es>, fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
Date: 02/11/2012 07:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE: final agenda review Nov 5
Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu>
________________________________
Dear colleagues,
First of all, I'm sending this email only to the PCC mailing list, just wanted to remark that.
I believe that this change in the agenda, sent in the middle of the holidays, gives to us little time to prepare things properly. I don't know what others think, but I believe that at least we should send an email reminding that it was agreed that the focus of the meeting was ONLY to review "checkpoint 10", while the item in the agenda Arian has introduced is linked to "checkpoint 11" which we were preparing for the review by end of the month. This with little time to react and/or prepare anything. Therefore, we should remark that the new item on the agenda should be considered an "initial discussion" or "brief on status" regarding checkpoint 11 but, by no means, a formal/final review of this checkpoint that we were preparing assuming it would be tackled in the review by the end of the month.
I would like to gather your feedback about whether we should send this response or not.
Regarding the two parts in which Arian proposes to structure this new slot in the agenda, he says that they expect that "each part is shortly introduced by a presentation from the consortium", so we should discuss urgently what are the ideas/statements we will present ... Here your are my thoughts on what ideas/statements we may present. Your feedback (comments of this set of initial ideas or your proposal on additional ideas) is welcome.
1. Terms and conditions of use of GE RI (Reference Implementations) within and beyond the FI-PPP
* Statement: Partners will comply with what was agreed in the Collaboration Agreement and there were some clear points there we should remind:
* Within the FI-PPP:
* provided without costs
* no special support conditions (e.g., 24x7, SLA) therefore "best-effort"
* some GEs may be planned to be delivered "as a Service" and software will be provided for local deployments, and supported, only if a UC project/trial provides a good rationale
* Beyond the FI-PPP:
* provided under FRAND terms
* support conditions are subject to bi-lateral agreements
* some GEs may be planned to be delivered "as a Service" and software will be provided for local deployments only subject to bilateral agreements
* However, the above conditions are limited to FI-PPP partners, when they require this in writing and only for the use to exploit foreground (results) they have developed in the FI-PPP
* The EC must understand that the requirement to extend the conditions defined beyond the FI-PPP also beyond the FI-PPP partners (i.e., any third party) was not initially considered so it takes time to analyze and bring a response to this new requirement
* We won't be able to talk about pricing at this stage (end of 1st Release, initial developments of 2nd Release) regarding offering beyond the FI-PPP and FI-WARE. However, we plan to bring information per GE regarding what kind of commercial models are planned to be supported by the corresponding GE owner, including what is going to be the kind/nature of support associated to each of those commercial models planned. When I refer to kind of commercial models, I mean to describe how the GE RI can be used/delivered, for example (note that models below are not exclusive):
* as a Service globally
* as a Service but restricted to particular geographical or domain areas where the GE owner is making business
* downloadable for locally deployment under defined public licenses for use
* bi-lateral agreements enabling third parties to commercialize the technology in exchange of royalties or % in revenues
* etc
(Question mark here: when can we commit that this information can be available for all GEs ? what can we say regarding dates when this info will be provided ?)
2. Involvement of third parties and rapid take-up of FI-WARE results
* We have always assumed that we were part of a program, and that means that the contribution of others to this goal should be carefully designed. It is not just FI-WARE ALONE who can cover this goal:
* FI-WARE will setup and Open Innovation Lab with a significant set of resources that will allow third parties to experiment applications, but other projects of the program have to bring the real trial environments where third parties can deploy the applications they have experimented in the Open Innovation Lab:
* It would be highly desirable that Trial projects allow third parties to deploy experimental applications in their infrastructure
* It should be requested that the Capacity Building project support third parties in deploying experimental applications on top of the shared FI-WARE Instance facility (or network of FI-WARE Instances) it is supposed to bring and offer in phase 2
* The investment in the Open Innovation Lab is not trivial, it would be fair to recognize that we are planning to deliver something relevant for experimenting/testing applications:
* about 1,2 MEUR of investment in datacenter infrastructure (servers, connectivity) linked to the Open Innovation Lab
* negotiations with Sevilla and Málaga cities so that the Open Innovation Laba datacenter infrastructure is complemented by sensor networks that may allow third parties to experiment applications that deal with sensors
* ... projects in phase 2 should bring what is needed as complementary (support to deployment of applications in real trials)
* All this should be borne in mind when selecting and negotiating projects in phase 2
* We need actions that help us to disseminate FI-WARE technologies and the Open Innovation Lab within the wider community of application developers.
* Despite we have planned the necessary support to such dissemination activities, we expected that CONCORD would coordinate that and would take care of sponsoring relevant events
* We welcome the suggestion of the EC to focus the 3rd Open Call in sponsoring this sort of activities
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es/>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect
You can follow FI-WARE at:
website: http://www.fi-ware.eu<http://www.fi-ware.eu/>
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
On 01/11/12 17:20, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Dear Jose,
Since the public launch event has been moved to Nov 6, a lot of space on the agenda was created. We would like to use this space efficiently.
Therefore, please find the final agenda for the review on Nov 5 attached.
Best regards,
Arian.
PS. I will not be available for Nov 6, and I doubt that Peter is. He is currently on holiday.
From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO [mailto:jimenez at tid.es]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:27 PM
To: FATELNIG Peter (CNECT)
Cc: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; 'Ana Garcia'; fiware-pcc
Subject: RE: FI-WARE testbed launch Seville
Dear Peter
Finally, after a lot of discussion, it seems we are going to have two events, related but separated.
- First is the FI-WARE review. November 5th . I attach the agenda. This event will be under invitation in a large room but not in an auditorium. It will bring representatives from all FI-WARE partners and, if you think it appropriate, you can have side meetings. Since many internal strategic discussion could take place, we preferred not to make it fully public.
- Second is a full event on opportunities of Smart cities . That will be November 6th and will be much more institutional (and in Spanish) to promote the PPP and the opportunities it will offer. I tried to have this second event in English but it seemed, after discussion with our Commercial people, that English was not adequate if we wanted to have any audience at all. That was also a reason not to have an open event for November 5th
The second event will be covered fully by the local press (and national also). They will also make reference to the FI-WARE event on Monday but, as I say, it will not be fully public.
I enclose the programmes of the two events
Comments (particularly for the Nov 5th event) are welcomed (it is internal, so we can change it without notice)
For the event of the 6th we intend to make maximum publicity
BR
From: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu]
Sent: lunes, 15 de octubre de 2012 14:55
To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO
Cc: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
Subject: FI-WARE testbed launch Seville
Dear Jose,
With the event coming closer, would you have a final agenda, notably for 5 November?
Would there be an opportunity to have a side meeting with members of the FI-WARE consortium present in Seville that day?
What sort of PR related work do you foresee? I suppose we could reuse some through the Commission's PR channels?
Many thanks, best, Peter
From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO [mailto:jimenez at tid.es]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:06 AM
To: FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); tcl at forskningsradet.no<mailto:tcl at forskningsradet.no>
Cc: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT)
Subject: RE: [FIF] FI-WARE testbed launch
Dear Till Christopher
Certainly, it would be a pleasure having FIF at the event. Peter has already sent you our draft agenda.
Do you think it would be appropriate a separate participation from your side?. My suggestions is FIF is incorporated in one of the Round tables since the event is already rather crowded.
Best regards
From: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu]
Sent: martes, 09 de octubre de 2012 8:59
To: tcl at forskningsradet.no<mailto:tcl at forskningsradet.no>
Cc: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO
Subject: RE: [FIF] FI-WARE testbed launch
Ouups, first I awaited to have a final, final confirmation on the date and then it went down the list. Sorry for the delay beyond necessary. The workshop will take place on 5 November, with a 'Spanish' day on 6 November, attached the workshop agenda for your consideration.
I ccied Jose Jimenez from Telefonica, the FI-WARE coordinator, who masterminds this pubic launch and who surely would welcome a representative of the Future Internet Forum.
Kind regards,
Peter
From: Till Christopher Lech [mailto:tcl at forskningsradet.no]<mailto:[mailto:tcl at forskningsradet.no]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:23 AM
To: FATELNIG Peter (CNECT)
Subject: [FIF] FI-WARE testbed launch
Dear Peter,
It's been nice seeing you again in Warsaw last week!
During your presentation on the FI-PPP's state of play, you mentioned the official FI-WARE test bed launch in Seville, November 8th.
As I might be interested in attending, can you at this point provide any more information on the event? Will there be an invitation issued to FIF-members? Any details (or pointers to more technical info) would be highly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
Med vennlig hilsen / Best regards
Till Christopher Lech
Seniorrådgiver / Senior Adviser
The Research Council of Norway
Mail: tcl at rcn.no<mailto:tcl at rcn.no>
Phone: +47 922 40884
________________________________
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
________________________________
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
________________________________
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_______________________________________________
Fiware-pcc mailing list
Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>
http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc
________________________________
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/20121102/9cfdadd3/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy