dear juanjo, i agree with you and alex. i suggest you send the naswer to arian very much in behalf of the pcc which was consulted during the we ... ;) ciao, stefano 2012/11/2 Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es> > > 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> <jhierro at tid.es> > To: jimenez at tid.es, 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 > ------------------------------ > > > > 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 M€ 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* <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*<http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242> > twitter: *http://twitter.com/FIware* <http://twitter.com/FIware> > linkedIn: *http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932*<http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932> > > On 01/11/12 17:20, *Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu*<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* <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* <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> [* > mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu* <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* <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* <jimenez at tid.es>] * > Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:06 AM* > To:* FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); *tcl at forskningsradet.no*<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* <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> [* > mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu* <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>] * > Sent:* martes, 09 de octubre de 2012 8:59* > To:* *tcl at forskningsradet.no* <tcl at forskningsradet.no>* > Cc:* *Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu* <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: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* <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*<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*<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 > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20121102/7a7fc5b6/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy