From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Feb 7 16:12:26 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:12:26 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New governance model Message-ID: <28290_1360249949_5113C45D_28290_3650_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08E864@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi all, As I've received from Xifi project this morning a new version of the proposed governance model I expect that Fi-Ware also received it. I do not know if Jose is always ill since he left quickly Brussels Monday afternoon but we have to send this new version of the document to all partners. EC expects to close the negotiations at the end of next week (15/02) so we cannot lost time to share this new proposal and give some feedback. BR Thierry Nagellen Program Manager Future Internet Orange Labs Networks & Carriers 905 rue Albert Einstein 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex +33 492 94 52 84 +33 679 85 08 44 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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, France Telecom - 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, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Sat Feb 9 19:01:50 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:01:50 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RV: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0601A7@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0601A7@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <51168F0E.3030103@tid.es> Dear partners, Mr. Arian Zwegers, our PO, sent to us the following message on Friday evening which elaborates on the justification of the calculation of rejection of costs in the first reporting period. As you remember, the rejection of costs was already announced in the Month 12 review report sent by the EC on August 2012. However, we didn't know what was the exact amount of costs that would be rejected and how it was going to be calculated. Our PO says that the attached report provides that explanation. Note that in the previous email with subject "Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012" there were three attachments. One of them (file "1201342.pdf") elaborates on what is the amount of the initially rejected costs that "may be resubmitted as adjustment in the next reporting period". This amount that may be resubmitted comes as result of the M18 interim review as far as I understand, where the EC and reviewers agreed that the project had significantly recovered. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 De: subsidies-bounces at tid.es [mailto:subsidies-bounces at tid.es] En nombre de Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu Enviado el: viernes, 08 de febrero de 2013 16:25 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu; subsidies at tid.es; Stephane.ANDRIES at ec.europa.eu Asunto: Re: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Jose, Please find attached the clarification on the rejected costs for RP1. Best regards, Arian. From: CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu [mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:49 PM To: jimenez at tid.es Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANDRIES Stephane (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Mr. Jimenez Delgado, I wish to advise you that the reports mentioned in Article 4 of Annex II to the grant agreement in reference, and submitted to the Commission on 05/07/2012, for the reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 have been examined. The results of the analysis of the financial statement are detailed in the attached financial statement acceptance forms. In summary a payment of 2.467.895 EUR will be made. We wish to draw your attention to the following: ? According to Article II.22 of the grant agreement, the Commission may, at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project, arrange for financial audits to be carried out, by external auditors, or by the Commission services themselves including OLAF. ? According to Article II.23 of the grant agreement, the Commission may initiate a technical audit or review at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project. The payment of the Union financial contribution to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation on payments to the other beneficiaries. Therefore, you shall ensure that all the appropriate payments are made to them without unjustified delay (see Articles II.2 and II.3). Furthermore note that according to the provisions of the Financial Regulation and of the grant agreement, sums due to the Union by a beneficiary may be recovered by offsetting them against any sums it owes to the beneficiary concerned, after informing the latter accordingly. Please inform the other beneficiaries of the results of the financial assessment for this reporting period. Yours sincerely, ZWEGERS Arian email Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu Project Officer ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20121013_FI_WARE_rejections_RP1_for_AFU.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 152064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE Rejection of costs in first reporting period.doc Type: application/msword Size: 64000 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Subsidies mailing list Subsidies at tid.es https://listas.tid.es/mailman/listinfo/subsidies From jhierro at tid.es Mon Feb 11 10:21:58 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:21:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: About Financial assessment of the FI-WARE Grant Agreement for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D68CA7@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D68CA7@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <5118B836.7080800@tid.es> Hi, Some responses from our PO regarding questions we made to him that were relevant to share. Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: About Financial assessment of the FI-WARE Grant Agreement for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:51:50 +0000 From: To: CC: , Dear Juanjo, 1) Yes 2) The temporary rejected costs may (or actually: should) be resubmitted in the second reporting period. As always, (re-)submission does not necessarily mean acceptance. Costs were and are subject to review. Best regards, Arian. From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:49 PM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: Jose Jimenez; subsidies at tid.es Subject: About Financial assessment of the FI-WARE Grant Agreement for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Arian, Several partners are asking and we would like to know what is the answer to the following questions: 1. Some of the rejected costs for the first report are marked as "definitive". We understand, though, that the funding that is not consumed in the first reporting period because of that is not lost and can be claimed as a result of work actually performed in the next reporting periods. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. 2. Regarding the ?temporary? rejected costs, our understanding is that after the M18 interim review (that demonstrated the hard work carried out to get back again on track) these temporary rejected costs will be automatically recognized in the report period P2, additionally to the ones corresponding to accepted costs for that period. This would be the interpretation of the sentences in the ?1201342.pdf? file where there is a sentence for each partner that says ?Please note that a total of xxx.xxx ? may be resubmitted as adjustment in the next reporting period.?. May you confirm ? Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Feb 14 16:06:19 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:06:19 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30843_1360854601_511CFE48_30843_386_1_11141a20-ede6-46cf-9298-93b26dfc66da@THSONEA01HUB03P.one.grp> Dear Jos?, Find attached to this email some additional feedback from my side. I added to the one of Werner who did already a great work! Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : jeudi 7 f?vrier 2013 16:32 ? : fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document Dear all Fi-WARE members As some of you may be aware, the version of the Governance model that was discussed at the PCC was not accepted by all the projects. A new draft has been made. I am enclosing this new draft for your comments Please send us your comments for sending them to the editor We (Telefonica) have also made some comments (see below). If you disagree with some of them, please let us also know. Telefonica Comments * The scope of activities of the so-called "Standardization Working Group" in previous drafts have extended to cover "Technical Guidance" which doesn't have any sense and creates a clear overlap with the Architecture Board mission. There is absolute no need for this and I rather oppose to creation of any group that deal with Technical Guidance. * In general terms, I have to say I'm rather skeptical about existence of any kind of Standardization WG at program level. I understand it sounds nice but I doubt of its effectiveness. In practice, standardization activities, if suitable, are pushed by interested parties when they have a strategic interest of it. Besides, need for standardization of a given spec is something that will be identified as relevant as project level. This means that, in practice, these kind of WGs don't use to provide much more value than simply dealing with dissemination of standardization efforts (e.g., help that partners of the program be aware of some standardization effort). Anyway, this is not a strong opinion as compared to the previous. I can live with the existence of a Standardization WG, it's simply that I doubt how much useful it may be. Another consideration is that maybe the leader of this WG should be assigned by the AB rather than the SB. * Pure editorial: unless I'm wrong and you are thinking that the DM and the BM roles are project-level role, I would then put as part of section 2 and I would retitled this section 3 as "Project-level roles" * I believe that there is part of the description of the DM that should go into the description of the BM role. I believe that the DM should be limited to perform activities dealing with wide dissemination of the FI-PPP have good networking with journalist, bloggers, etc and have the experience of setting up and coordinating large events. S/he would also deal ensure that the FI-PPP website are designed well enough to serve the dissemination goal. S/he also deal with designing and manage the presence of the FI-PPP in relevant social web networks (Twitter, etc). You know that this is more than enough and deserves assigning one person for that mission, without the need to give her/him any other extra burden like business/market analysis, sustainability, etc. With regard to implementation options, I don't have strong opinions but I believe that introducing this text in the DoW is enough and would probably the faster solution. This may create some inconsistencies with the Consortium Agreements signed by partners of the projects, but as far as I understand this shouldn't be a problem because the CAs are not known by the EC nor are part of the contract. Then we can instruct the legal departments to fix the CAs to align with the DoW but this doesn't need to be carried out in urgent mode. De: David Kennedy [mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 06 de febrero de 2013 22:29 Para: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es); Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) Asunto: FI-PPP Phase 2 Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document Hi phase 2 project leaders, Please find attached a proposed revision of the management document where I have tried to accept the commission requested and industry proposed improvements in the governance. In particular we should try to support a dynamic decision making processes, while trying to avoid ending up in contradiction of the collaboration agreement, The negotiation meeting showed a good co-operative spirit which I have tried to capture. The role of the text is to ensure that all participating projects have the same understanding of the expectations on them in terms of their responsibilities to participate in programme level activities and to commit the appropriate resources. We can solve many problems if we commit enough resources to programme level activities in our DoWs. A key point is to ensure that the Steering board, and in turn the project coordinators, are empowered to make the necessary programme decisions in good time, while respecting the need to consider the impact on individual project and participant resources. The intention is also to ensure that the Project coordinators are prepared for programme level decisions by having project resources assigned to the programme level activities from the start of the project. This should mean that the coordinator responsibility for SB decisions on such activities does not imply any new or unforeseen resource allocations. If these resources are not used they can be redeployed later in the projects life. The main challenge is how to introduce the industry strategic input. This has been introduced already to some extent by the commission inviting some players to consult with Stan?i? last year and the commissioner this year. Maybe the practical approach is just to acknowledge this and work with that group through a steering board decision to formalise this liaison. The alternative is to create an addendum to the collaboration agreement, but this could take a very long time to get the agreement of all (160+) parties. Anyway, please read the suggestions at the back of the document and consider the most pragmatic solution. May I ask for the project leaders to give a reply on behalf of their projects in an impossibly short time as ideally I would like to assemble a commented version on Friday ? but I will understand if I can get the comments by Monday morning at the very latest. I only sent this to the project leader contacts I am aware of ? the project leaders must decide for themselves who in their respective consortiums they wish to share this with. With this version we are risking that we are not showing enough commitment to make the management work as the commission would like to see - so please, when commenting, try not to remove all commitments and responsibilities. We must make some commitments to being proactive and positive in making this programme work ? if we sterilise the text too much the commission will enforce theirs. It is not perfect ? but is it adequate? Thanks for your co-operation, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM ? European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213_NSN_THA-PB.doc Type: application/msword Size: 352768 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213_NSN_THA-PB.doc URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Tue Feb 19 15:32:57 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:32:57 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Fwd: RV: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 In-Reply-To: <51168F0E.3030103@tid.es> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0601A7@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <51168F0E.3030103@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, in the documents by the P.O. it is stated that, among others, the deliverables Dx.2.1 (x=3-8) ?SW Release (version of components delivered for integration in testbed)? were rejected, and therefore have to be resubmitted. While it was obvious that the deliverables Dx.y.1 (with x=3-8 and y=3-5) had to be resubmitted, and indeed this was done for M18 review, I have been asked by some of the partners if formally there is still something to be done for a ?resubmission? of the SW itself. I believe there is nothing to do (I consider the presentation on checkpoint 3 at M18 review the answer), however to avoid misinterpretations can you clarify about this point, many thanks. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: sabato 9 febbraio 2013 19:02 A: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RV: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear partners, Mr. Arian Zwegers, our PO, sent to us the following message on Friday evening which elaborates on the justification of the calculation of rejection of costs in the first reporting period. As you remember, the rejection of costs was already announced in the Month 12 review report sent by the EC on August 2012. However, we didn't know what was the exact amount of costs that would be rejected and how it was going to be calculated. Our PO says that the attached report provides that explanation. Note that in the previous email with subject "Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012" there were three attachments. One of them (file "1201342.pdf") elaborates on what is the amount of the initially rejected costs that "may be resubmitted as adjustment in the next reporting period". This amount that may be resubmitted comes as result of the M18 interim review as far as I understand, where the EC and reviewers agreed that the project had significantly recovered. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 De: subsidies-bounces at tid.es [mailto:subsidies-bounces at tid.es] En nombre de Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu Enviado el: viernes, 08 de febrero de 2013 16:25 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu; subsidies at tid.es; Stephane.ANDRIES at ec.europa.eu Asunto: Re: [Subsidies] Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Jose, Please find attached the clarification on the rejected costs for RP1. Best regards, Arian. From: CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu [mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:49 PM To: jimenez at tid.es Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANDRIES Stephane (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Grant agreement No. 285248 FI-WARE - Financial assessment for reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 Dear Mr. Jimenez Delgado, I wish to advise you that the reports mentioned in Article 4 of Annex II to the grant agreement in reference, and submitted to the Commission on 05/07/2012, for the reporting period P1 from 01/05/2011 to 30/04/2012 have been examined. The results of the analysis of the financial statement are detailed in the attached financial statement acceptance forms. In summary a payment of 2.467.895 EUR will be made. We wish to draw your attention to the following: ? According to Article II.22 of the grant agreement, the Commission may, at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project, arrange for financial audits to be carried out, by external auditors, or by the Commission services themselves including OLAF. ? According to Article II.23 of the grant agreement, the Commission may initiate a technical audit or review at any time during the implementation of the project and up to five years after the end of the project. The payment of the Union financial contribution to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation on payments to the other beneficiaries. Therefore, you shall ensure that all the appropriate payments are made to them without unjustified delay (see Articles II.2 and II.3). Furthermore note that according to the provisions of the Financial Regulation and of the grant agreement, sums due to the Union by a beneficiary may be recovered by offsetting them against any sums it owes to the beneficiary concerned, after informing the latter accordingly. Please inform the other beneficiaries of the results of the financial assessment for this reporting period. Yours sincerely, ZWEGERS Arian email Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu Project Officer ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 20 08:49:04 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:49:04 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51247FF0.8080006@tid.es> Hi all, Please find enclosed latest version of the FI-PPP governance model. We haven't had time to review it ourselves. I'm just passing it to you. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:34:40 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , Jimenez Delgado Jos? , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) Hi all, Attached is revision 3 of the governance model where I have added the updates and comments received - or replied directly if your suggestions could not be accommodated. We seem to have consensus that the model is possible through elaborating our shared understanding of the Advisory function and the chair roles through SB decisions. This roles and activities are in line with the intentions of the collaboration agreement and can be viewed as refinements and improvements of the processes described. The major changes in revision 3 are: * update of the description of the standardisation working group, - removal of alignment activities that overlapped with the AB. * Programme chair or AB chair as mediator for conflict in the first instance, but open to invoke a professional mediator (as mentioned in the Collaboration agreement) if this does not resolve the problem. * 2 representatives of each project in the Steering board There were comments about the voting rights in the SB for programme officers, and others attending the meeting, possibly confusing the project based nature of the steering function. To avoid any confusion, we should ensure that FI-PPP SB decisions are only based on the collated project positions, as prepared by the project co-ordinators. I have not put any text on voting in this model to avoid creating any conflicts or confusion here. I believe, based on an audio conference Ilkka and I had with the commission this morning, that we can get the commission to accept this version but we need to be clear that you will accept this version too. The next action we would like to kick off is a short discussion, as raised by Sjaak, on what level of resources are actually needed for programme level activities - we can circulate a proposal on this this afternoon to gather our ideas and seek consensus. SO ACTION FOR PROJECT LEADERS - please confirm if the version is acceptable to you for inclusion in the DoW. Many thanks, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 281257 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 20 08:53:52 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:53:52 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Programme Level activities in Phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51248110.9080802@tid.es> Hi, I'm also passing this mail to you. I haven't forwarded it to the whole partners to avoid a too wide discussion. If you believe I should, please let me know. Without having yet analyzed all the details, I have to say that we have to rather carefully look at this. I'm not pretty sure that we may have all the resources they may be asking for. On the other hand, all actors, starting with the EC, should recognize that FI-WARE is doing more than anyone through the 3rd Open Call (4,2 MEUR in funding for dissemination purposes). Reallocation of resources for program-levell dissemination activities should be a negotiation that affects new projects but not FI-WARE. Shouldn't we make this point clear ? Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Programme Level activities in Phase 2 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:01:23 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , Jimenez Delgado Jos? , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" Hi all, A key point relating to our join aspects in the negotiation phase is to dimension the activities. To kick this off, we have a working document with first ideas on what we need to be working on at the programme level and a first attempt to dimension this. (thanks to FI-Star for a first input and the rest of you for ideas mentioned in the negotiation meeting). Can I ask you to first enhance the activities descriptions as it is unlikely we have captured every idea, and we may even have some ideas overlapping. The issues to be considered include: * Joint external events (including open call information days) * Joint internal events (creation of FI-PPP identity) * Participation in national events * Dissemination through 3rd party external events * Resources for programme level activities But you are free to suggest more issues if they are there or refine some of these - maybe we should have a better grouping. ...and of course we have tried to identify the levels of resources that should be available for these activities based on the principle that the preparation work is within the project work and the efforts here are for the collaborative part. The idea here is to keep enough resources to ensure we can perform well as a programme. So, please have a look and react as soon as you can to see if we can quickly converge on more practical planning for the phase 2 of the programme. Best wishes, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-PPP Programme level issues for discussion.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24624 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Feb 20 08:59:44 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Message-ID: Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Feb 20 09:28:25 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:28:25 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12436_1361348907_5124892B_12436_68_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C09DA8C@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi Jose, It was a pleasure working with you, first on the Fi-Ware proposal and then in the FI PPP during all these months. In some discussions you are also part of the memory of this story. I wish you the best for your new professional activities and of course expect to meet you soon for some new projects in the FI PPP context. Godd luck and see you soon! BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : mercredi 20 f?vrier 2013 09:00 ? : 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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, France Telecom - 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, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Feb 20 11:19:36 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:36 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Programme Level activities in Phase 2 In-Reply-To: <51248110.9080802@tid.es> References: <51248110.9080802@tid.es> Message-ID: dear juanjo and all, i definitively agree with you. as project we re-directed 4.2 MEUR (!!!) of our technical budget exactly to improve the dissemination and outreach of fi-ware and the whole fi-ppp. what we can certainly assure is our qulified presence to such events, and eventually a person (the dissemination wp leader) that closely follow the strategic planning of such events, but asking more than already it is in our dow i believe is somehow unfair. of course still each partner is free to contribute as much as they want and even invent events if they believe and need to do so, provided this does not divert their effort from the core fi-ware goals. ciao, stefano 2013/2/20 Juanjo Hierro > Hi, > > I'm also passing this mail to you. I haven't forwarded it to the whole > partners to avoid a too wide discussion. If you believe I should, please > let me know. > > Without having yet analyzed all the details, I have to say that we have > to rather carefully look at this. I'm not pretty sure that we may have > all the resources they may be asking for. On the other hand, all actors, > starting with the EC, should recognize that FI-WARE is doing more than > anyone through the 3rd Open Call (4,2 M? in funding for dissemination > purposes). Reallocation of resources for program-levell dissemination > activities should be a negotiation that affects new projects but not > FI-WARE. Shouldn't we make this point clear ? > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo > > ------------- > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital > website: www.tid.es > email: 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 > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Programme > Level activities in Phase 2 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:01:23 +0000 From: David > Kennedy To: > FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu > , > Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , Jimenez > Delgado Jos? , Federico ?lvarez ( > federico.alvarez at upm.es) , > Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: > Fatelnig Peter , > "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" > > > Hi all, > > > > A key point relating to our join aspects in the negotiation phase is to > dimension the activities. To kick this off, we have a working document > with first ideas on what we need to be working on at the programme level > and a first attempt to dimension this. (thanks to FI-Star for a first > input and the rest of you for ideas mentioned in the negotiation meeting). > > > > Can I ask you to first enhance the activities descriptions as it is > unlikely we have captured every idea, and we may even have some ideas > overlapping. > > > > The issues to be considered include: > > ? Joint external events (including open call information days) > > ? Joint internal events (creation of FI-PPP identity) > > ? Participation in national events > > ? Dissemination through 3rd party external events > > ? Resources for programme level activities > > > > But you are free to suggest more issues if they are there or refine some > of these ? maybe we should have a better grouping. > > > > ?and of course we have tried to identify the levels of resources that > should be available for these activities based on the principle that the > preparation work is within the project work and the efforts here are for > the collaborative part. The idea here is to keep enough resources to ensure > we can perform well as a programme. > > > > So, please have a look and react as soon as you can to see if we can > quickly converge on more practical planning for the phase 2 of the > programme. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > David > > > > > > David Kennedy > > Director > > Eurescom GmbH > > Wieblinger Weg 19/4 > > D-69123 Heidelberg > > Germany > > > > Phone: +49 6221 989 122 > > Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 > > > > EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration > > > > EURESCOM ? European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in > Telecommunications GmbH. > Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. > Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. > Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) > Paul Jenkins. > Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. > Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC > (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. > VAT Nr. DE 143457825 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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-wpl mailing list > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl > > -- 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: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Wed Feb 20 19:33:17 2013 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:33:17 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model_comments Atos Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A01AD75C0@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Hi Juanjo, all, Thanks for the next version of the Governance model. Find below few comments from Atos: ? I understand this is a mistake, but the descriptions of the Dissemination manager and the Business impact manager are blurred. In fact they both mention responsibilities such as "market analysis, business models, sustainability issues", or "liaison with other initiatives such as ICT Labs, Smart cities, etc". If the two roles are merged, as the documents points out (to be decided by the SB, then it makes sense that both descriptions are merged too; if that doesn't happen, then I do not think that mixing the two things makes sense). Besides that I would say that the two roles require different profiles. ? Again, in the case of these two roles the document says that they will be funded by CONCORD. Does it mean that they will also be selected/decided by CONCORD? o In the case of the standardization WG it is explicitly said that the leader of this WG will be assigned by the SB o In the case of the Policy and Regulation WG it is explicitly said that the leader of the WG will be assigned by the SB o However, in the case of Communication and Dissemination WG and Business Impact and Exploitation WG this is not said as such. Instead, it is said: "The Dissemination Manager is the leader of this Working Group." and "The Business Impact Manager is the leader of this Working Group". Besides these comments, let me add some additional aspects already highlighted by our legal department. I think the new version of the document complies with it, but just as reminder. ? Impact of the EIB decisions will be evaluated at the level of each project if there is an impact on the DoW and decisions will be taken by them following the principle of programme spirit and collaboration, but always respecting the clauses set by the collaboration agreement: ? Decisions with impact on the work plan committed to in Annex 1 of a Grant Agreement of an ongoing FII Project must be confirmed by the Parties of the affected FII Project and shall, for the sake of clarity, have no binding effects on such FII Project without such confirmation ? "For the sake of clarity, none of the bodies described (...) shall have the right or authority to take decisions which are binding on any single FII Project" Can you provide some guidance on the deadlines for the Governance model? When should it be agreed by all parties? Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: mi?rcoles, 20 de febrero de 2013 8:49 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model Hi all, Please find enclosed latest version of the FI-PPP governance model. We haven't had time to review it ourselves. I'm just passing it to you. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:34:40 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , Jimenez Delgado Jos? , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) Hi all, Attached is revision 3 of the governance model where I have added the updates and comments received - or replied directly if your suggestions could not be accommodated. We seem to have consensus that the model is possible through elaborating our shared understanding of the Advisory function and the chair roles through SB decisions. This roles and activities are in line with the intentions of the collaboration agreement and can be viewed as refinements and improvements of the processes described. The major changes in revision 3 are: * update of the description of the standardisation working group, - removal of alignment activities that overlapped with the AB. * Programme chair or AB chair as mediator for conflict in the first instance, but open to invoke a professional mediator (as mentioned in the Collaboration agreement) if this does not resolve the problem. * 2 representatives of each project in the Steering board There were comments about the voting rights in the SB for programme officers, and others attending the meeting, possibly confusing the project based nature of the steering function. To avoid any confusion, we should ensure that FI-PPP SB decisions are only based on the collated project positions, as prepared by the project co-ordinators. I have not put any text on voting in this model to avoid creating any conflicts or confusion here. I believe, based on an audio conference Ilkka and I had with the commission this morning, that we can get the commission to accept this version but we need to be clear that you will accept this version too. The next action we would like to kick off is a short discussion, as raised by Sjaak, on what level of resources are actually needed for programme level activities - we can circulate a proposal on this this afternoon to gather our ideas and seek consensus. SO ACTION FOR PROJECT LEADERS - please confirm if the version is acceptable to you for inclusion in the DoW. Many thanks, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Thu Feb 21 08:54:32 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose, This is a totally unexpected communication to me, I didn't hear about it! I believe we'll lack one of the main supporters of FI-WARE and FI-PPP initiative, thanks a lot for your precious work in, and for, FI-WARE. I wish you all the best for your new professional challenges, and look forward to meeting you again for future collaborations! Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: mercoled? 20 febbraio 2013 09:00 A: 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Thu Feb 21 09:36:23 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:36:23 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose, I am a very, very unhappy that hear this very bad news. It was always a great joy to work with you in FI-WARE. For the further future I wish you all the best. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Garino Pierangelo Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 08:55 To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: fiware-pcc; 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Jose leaving Telefonica Dear Jose, This is a totally unexpected communication to me, I didn't hear about it! I believe we'll lack one of the main supporters of FI-WARE and FI-PPP initiative, thanks a lot for your precious work in, and for, FI-WARE. I wish you all the best for your new professional challenges, and look forward to meeting you again for future collaborations! Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: mercoled? 20 febbraio 2013 09:00 A: 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 677 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Feb 21 10:23:31 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:23:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14403_1361438839_5125E877_14403_118_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E159CE11@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Jos?, It was true pleasure to work with you on FI-WARE also to see you in Madrid on Tuesday. Once more many thanks for your hard work and commitment to the success of FI-WARE and FI-PPP Programme. And yes I'm confident that you will find opportunities to continue supporting us. Wish you in any case success. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : mercredi 20 f?vrier 2013 09:00 ? : 'fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu'; fiware-pcc Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Jose leaving Telefonica Dear all Some of you already know that I am leaving Telefonica due to an internal reorganization. This means I shall not be the FI-WARE project coordinator any longer nor will be representing the project at the SB and other bodies I confess I am leaving FI-WARE with pain. In the PPP I have found a very good team of people doing a fantastic technical work. I know, of course, the limitations, but still participating in FI-WARE has been a real professional and personal challenge that I have tried to enjoy as much as possible. Fortunately, Juanjo will continue being the Technical Manager and Telefonica shall name a new PC soon . Representation at the SB and other legal and political bodies will be coordinated by Luis Ignacio Vicente with the collaboration of the team. I would like to insist that this is just a personal move and, of course, the commitment of Telefonica to FI-WARE and the PPP remains the same. But I do not want to disappear completely from the PPP. Outside Telefonica I shall be looking for possibilities to work together. I think the PPP, and FI-WARE in particular, is a real objective for Europe and I want to be part of it. Therefore I do not say Good Bye but rather See you later Do not forget to take note of my new coordinates Jose Jimenez jimenez at coit.es 34 629 14 86 51 Best for all of you --- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Feb 21 14:11:46 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:11:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model In-Reply-To: <5125F3FD.2050502@tid.es> References: <5125F3FD.2050502@tid.es> Message-ID: <51261D12.3050902@tid.es> Hi all, Regarding the third revision of the governance model I would like to transparently share with you the comments submitted by Telefonica. Of course, we have make it clear they were just comments from our side because we are still analyzing it at project level. In this respect, we have made it clear that FI-WARE hasn't approved the proposed governance model yet. I would kindly ask you to share your position regarding the current version of the document asap. In addition, we would rather appreciate if you can tell us whether you agree or not with the comments made by Telef?nica, which I would summarize as follows: * We propose that the SB do not need to follow the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. Certainly it is fine to request following such procedure in delicate matters, but not for any decision. Otherwise, we are bringing too much burocracy in the governance. * We propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". This was something that was already happening in phase 1, but you never know what may come with new projects so we believe it is important that the AB takes the role of actually monitoring that recommendations on usage of FI-WARE GEs (to be provided by FI-WARE) are actually implemented * We believe that we have to be careful when we use terms such as "overall FI-PPP business plan". We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... what is important is that we define a model of sustainability of the FI-PPP results that enables companies to implement their business plans, without the need to get them all synchronized. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. This is realistic, any other thing sounds like "wishful thinking". * We believe that our contribution to overall promotion through the third FI-WARE Open Call should be recognized and given the right value. We are bringing a lot through it that will go for the sake of the whole program (in some cases, bordering activities that we may have argued that should have been carried out by others) so therefore we cannot be asked for another 5-10% of budget for program-level activities. We can understand this is asked to new projects, and certainly the EC should secure their contribution, but that is not our case. I propose to arrange a short confcall right after Part II of the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next Monday for closing a position. Meanwhile, it would be nice that everyone circulates their comments and also provides feeback about Telefonica's comments. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:16:29 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy , Lakaniemi Ilkka CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Dear David and Ilkka, Please find enclosed Telefonica's comments on revision 3 of the governance model. Sorry for the delay sending them. Since you have shared revision 3 of the governance model with the EC already, I put them on copy. The amendments we propose regarding the AB is the most critical one. Also the comment on procedures for decisions at the SB. Both go for adopting effective and efficient improvements to the FI-PPP management structure. There are comments that have to do with suggestion for rewording of sentences that refer to "program-level business plans". I believe it is more accurate to talk about ?overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan? because sustainability of the ecosystem we aim to build is something we pursue. Such overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan should be formulated in a way that it enables major stakeholders to develop their own individual business plans coexisting with others?. Saying that we are going to define an overall business plan is too much but, I would say more, there may be partners who may wish to accelerate their business plan and not get delayed by others. An overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan is what should enable these players to actually accelerate their business plans and show the path to others. Rest of comments inserted in the document are less critical. A very important comment, despite not inserted in the text, is that Telefonica believes that the budget that FI-WARE is already putting on the table, through the 3rd Open Call, namely 4,2 M? for activities dealing with promotion of FI-WARE and creation of an innovation ecosystem bringing SMEs and entrepreneurs should be already considered a relevant contribution to the overall success of the program. This besides our contribution with resources participating in the existing WGs and governance bodies, the offering of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab to third parties, etc. Therefore, asking for additional 5-10% of the budget for additional program-level activities would be totally unfair and may impact our efforts trying to deliver a FI-WARE platform that technically brings what developers need. I'm pretty sure that if all the rest of projects, altogether, bring on the table another 4.2 M? of funding for program-level promotional activities besides resources similar to those FI-WARE is already contributing on other WGs, we can achieve a lot. Telefonica needs to understand how our contribution to the overall program success, through the launch of the 3rd Open Call, is going to be measured in terms of contribution to program-level activities before approving a text that mentions contribution of 5-10% budget to such program-level activities. This is, of course, just Telefonica's comments. We haven't yet finalized our internal discussions as to present a position of the FI-WARE project. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213 comments by Telefonica.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 288003 bytes Desc: not available URL: From burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com Thu Feb 21 16:27:24 2013 From: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com (Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:27:24 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model In-Reply-To: <51261D12.3050902@tid.es> References: <5125F3FD.2050502@tid.es> <51261D12.3050902@tid.es> Message-ID: Find the detailed comments from SAPin the accompanying Word document (both as changes and comments). The new version is better than the last one, however, there is still room for improvement. We still miss an alignment with the existing collaboration agreement. This is unfortunate, because with such alignment, a lot of discussion would not be needed. A lot of things are already addressed in the existing collaboration agreement. If, for example, the chairman of the Architecture Board ignores certain tasks of the Architecture Board, this is not the fault of the Collaboration Agreement. A lot of the description of the tasks of all boards are missing. This creates confusion about the tasks of each board .It constitutes a change of the collaboration agreement through the backdoor. Speaking from a legal perspective, this is alarming, as there are partners, who do not want to stick to the rules they have agreed to two years ago. Especially, the Secretariat (run by Concord) tries to get rid of administrative tasks. The idea to elect advisory board members which have the skill set required for the EIB has not been discussed. It has not been discussed if there are other ways to improve the alignment of the FI PPP Boards and the collaboration of the partners with the partners. There are still overlaps between the boards and working groups. Concord and its Secretariat are trying to receive extra money from the other projects in order to perform the tasks as assigned to them in their respective GA. We assume, that Concord should be able to execute its tasks according to the funding they receive from the EC and according to its DOW. The role of the chairman of the Architecture Board as mediator creates a potential conflict of interest. The Chairman of the Architecture Board represents Fi-Ware as Fi-Wares chief architect. The setup creates a builtin conflict of interest. At the last page, they say, the wording should be only a supplement to the Collaboration Agreement. Then it should be no problem to include the following wording: ?The concrete tasks, composition and processes of the FI PPP Boards are regulated in the Collaboration Agreement, each beneficiary must sign. Hence, with regard to the concrete governance of the respective boards and roles, the FI PPP Collaboration Agreement prevails. ? As to Telefonicas remarks as outlined in the mail, bullets 1-4: 1. We do understand that you want to eliminate bureaucracy, but who decides what constitutes a ?delicate? matter ?. SAP would be fine for skipping the ?2 weeks? notice if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. 2. Fine with SAP 3. SAP agrees that the notion of an ?overall business plan? is indeed ill-conceived 4. We have not yet analyzed that part sufficiently. Regards, Burkhard Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 14:12 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Hi all, Regarding the third revision of the governance model I would like to transparently share with you the comments submitted by Telefonica. Of course, we have make it clear they were just comments from our side because we are still analyzing it at project level. In this respect, we have made it clear that FI-WARE hasn't approved the proposed governance model yet. I would kindly ask you to share your position regarding the current version of the document asap. In addition, we would rather appreciate if you can tell us whether you agree or not with the comments made by Telef?nica, which I would summarize as follows: * We propose that the SB do not need to follow the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. Certainly it is fine to request following such procedure in delicate matters, but not for any decision. Otherwise, we are bringing too much burocracy in the governance. * We propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". This was something that was already happening in phase 1, but you never know what may come with new projects so we believe it is important that the AB takes the role of actually monitoring that recommendations on usage of FI-WARE GEs (to be provided by FI-WARE) are actually implemented * We believe that we have to be careful when we use terms such as "overall FI-PPP business plan". We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... what is important is that we define a model of sustainability of the FI-PPP results that enables companies to implement their business plans, without the need to get them all synchronized. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. This is realistic, any other thing sounds like "wishful thinking". * We believe that our contribution to overall promotion through the third FI-WARE Open Call should be recognized and given the right value. We are bringing a lot through it that will go for the sake of the whole program (in some cases, bordering activities that we may have argued that should have been carried out by others) so therefore we cannot be asked for another 5-10% of budget for program-level activities. We can understand this is asked to new projects, and certainly the EC should secure their contribution, but that is not our case. I propose to arrange a short confcall right after Part II of the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next Monday for closing a position. Meanwhile, it would be nice that everyone circulates their comments and also provides feeback about Telefonica's comments. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:16:29 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy , Lakaniemi Ilkka CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Dear David and Ilkka, Please find enclosed Telefonica's comments on revision 3 of the governance model. Sorry for the delay sending them. Since you have shared revision 3 of the governance model with the EC already, I put them on copy. The amendments we propose regarding the AB is the most critical one. Also the comment on procedures for decisions at the SB. Both go for adopting effective and efficient improvements to the FI-PPP management structure. There are comments that have to do with suggestion for rewording of sentences that refer to "program-level business plans". I believe it is more accurate to talk about ?overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan? because sustainability of the ecosystem we aim to build is something we pursue. Such overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan should be formulated in a way that it enables major stakeholders to develop their own individual business plans coexisting with others?. Saying that we are going to define an overall business plan is too much but, I would say more, there may be partners who may wish to accelerate their business plan and not get delayed by others. An overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan is what should enable these players to actually accelerate their business plans and show the path to others. Rest of comments inserted in the document are less critical. A very important comment, despite not inserted in the text, is that Telefonica believes that the budget that FI-WARE is already putting on the table, through the 3rd Open Call, namely 4,2 M? for activities dealing with promotion of FI-WARE and creation of an innovation ecosystem bringing SMEs and entrepreneurs should be already considered a relevant contribution to the overall success of the program. This besides our contribution with resources participating in the existing WGs and governance bodies, the offering of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab to third parties, etc. Therefore, asking for additional 5-10% of the budget for additional program-level activities would be totally unfair and may impact our efforts trying to deliver a FI-WARE platform that technically brings what developers need. I'm pretty sure that if all the rest of projects, altogether, bring on the table another 4.2 M? of funding for program-level promotional activities besides resources similar to those FI-WARE is already contributing on other WGs, we can achieve a lot. Telefonica needs to understand how our contribution to the overall program success, through the launch of the 3rd Open Call, is going to be measured in terms of contribution to program-level activities before approving a text that mentions contribution of 5-10% budget to such program-level activities. This is, of course, just Telefonica's comments. We haven't yet finalized our internal discussions as to present a position of the FI-WARE project. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213_revSAP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 287228 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213_revSAP.docx URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Feb 21 18:50:27 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:50:27 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model In-Reply-To: References: <5125F3FD.2050502@tid.es> <51261D12.3050902@tid.es> Message-ID: <51265E63.7060406@tid.es> On 21/02/13 16:27, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Find the detailed comments from SAPin the accompanying Word document (both as changes and comments). The new version is better than the last one, however, there is still room for improvement. We still miss an alignment with the existing collaboration agreement. This is unfortunate, because with such alignment, a lot of discussion would not be needed. A lot of things are already addressed in the existing collaboration agreement. If, for example, the chairman of the Architecture Board ignores certain tasks of the Architecture Board, this is not the fault of the Collaboration Agreement. I don't understand what you pretend to state with the last statement but it's simply unjustified and impertinent. The chairman of the Architecture Board (me) perfectly knows what the Collaboration Agreements establishes regarding tasks of the Architecture Board, among other things because it was me, together with Thomas M. Bohnert (maybe you remember him) who wrote the list of tasks that was inserted in the first draft of the Collaboration Agreement and followed up what finally got there approved. May be you ignored that. I haven't been the editor of the governance document. Probably, if I had been the editor, I had copy the existing tasks in the CA or a summary of them. However, I have always assumed that it was not the intention that it maps word by word with the Collaboration Agreement. Since the idea is to add the text the DoW, which as far as I understand PREVAILS over the Collaboration Agreement, I have always understood that: * We should make sure that there are no tasks described in the governance document that enter into contradiction with any task description of the Collaboration Agreement. If so, we should carefully look at it. * We should add whatever we have learned, based on experience, that needs to be added and was missing in the Collaboration Agreement Regarding the first point, I'm happy to add all the tasks that were there in the initial Collaboration Agreement. As I have said, I co-authored that list. Regarding extension of the list of tasks, I believe it is appropriate to add tasks at the light of experience from phase 1. Preventing addition of new tasks that we know would enhance performance of the program would be a mistake. In particular, we learned that we have to be a bit pushy regarding adoption of FI-WARE GEs by UC projects. One of the mistakes in phase 1 recognized even by the own EC was that there was not a mandate on UC projects to really make their best using the most of FI-WARE. Question then is how to add these tasks as recognized tasks of the AB and create a legal binding. Here, it is where some companies like Telefonica are, simply, more flexible that other companies I guess. We have always understood that the DoW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement (same as the EC, BTW). Therefore we just need to add the new tasks to the DoW. Fixing the Collaboration Agreement is something that may come aftewards with no urgency. This process would be a kind of "fast-track adoption" process for some changes in the governance model. A lot of the description of the tasks of all boards are missing. This creates confusion about the tasks of each board .It constitutes a change of the collaboration agreement through the backdoor. Speaking from a legal perspective, this is alarming, as there are partners, who do not want to stick to the rules they have agreed to two years ago. As I have said, adding the tasks that were there in the Collaboration Agreement shouldn't be an issue. Adding the governance document to the DoW may constitute a way to incorporate enhancements (like addition of some new tasks in some governance boides) through the backdoor, yes. But a pragmatic way to implement such changes ("fast-track adoption"). We didn't consider the tasks we are now adding at the time we wrote the Collaboration Agreement simply because we didn't have the experience we now have. Especially, the Secretariat (run by Concord) tries to get rid of administrative tasks. Honestly, I don't know what administrative tasks you think are not being considered also in the governance document. My understanding is that the so-called PMO in the governance document is the secretariat ... The idea to elect advisory board members which have the skill set required for the EIB has not been discussed. It has not been discussed if there are other ways to improve the alignment of the FI PPP Boards and the collaboration of the partners with the partners. The Executive Industry Board is a new figure demanded by some partners as well as the EC. We are fine with its inclusion at Telefonica. My understanding is that the "Advisory Board" described in the Collaboration Agreement may be considered as split into two groups, one being the EIB and another one the sill named Advisory Board. Therefore, we are not changing anything fundamental in the Collaboration Agreement. Of course, you may claim this is another "change through the backdoor" because we are changing, among other things, the number of members. But here again the point I made regarding "fast-track adoption" of changes also applies. There are still overlaps between the boards and working groups. Concord and its Secretariat are trying to receive extra money from the other projects in order to perform the tasks as assigned to them in their respective GA. We assume, that Concord should be able to execute its tasks according to the funding they receive from the EC and according to its DOW. The role of the chairman of the Architecture Board as mediator creates a potential conflict of interest. The Chairman of the Architecture Board represents Fi-Ware as Fi-Wares chief architect. The setup creates a builtin conflict of interest. Honestly, speaking, I don't care about adding or not this "mediator" role. Trying to mediate is waste of time when a given party in the controversy simply doesn't want to hear. At the end of the day, what really matters is the spirit of collaboration reached between members of the AB. So far, in phase 1, things worked pretty well as it has been recognized multiple times. This was because we managed to create a spirit of collaboration where pragmatism and forward-looking prevailed. For me, what is relevant is that decisions in the Architecture Board are taken by consensus (as indeed the Collaboration Agreement states). At the last page, they say, the wording should be only a supplement to the Collaboration Agreement. Then it should be no problem to include the following wording: ?The concrete tasks, composition and processes of the FI PPP Boards are regulated in the Collaboration Agreement, each beneficiary must sign. Hence, with regard to the concrete governance of the respective boards and roles, the FI PPP Collaboration Agreement prevails. ? Literally adding this sentence may go against adding tasks to governance bodies, or introducing enhancements in the governance, for example. How do you propose to add such enhancements otherwise (fast enough) ? As to Telefonicas remarks as outlined in the mail, bullets 1-4: 1. We do understand that you want to eliminate bureaucracy, but who decides what constitutes a ?delicate? matter ?. SAP would be fine for skipping the ?2 weeks? notice if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. That seems ok to me so regarding this comment we can present a common position if others also agree. 2. Fine with SAP Great. However ... how do you solve the issue that the proposed task is not listed in the Collaboration Agreement ? :-) 3. SAP agrees that the notion of an ?overall business plan? is indeed ill-conceived Would you agree with introducing the concept of "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan" or have any other alternative proposal ? 4. We have not yet analyzed that part sufficiently. Ok Best regards, -- Juanjo Regards, Burkhard Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 14:12 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Hi all, Regarding the third revision of the governance model I would like to transparently share with you the comments submitted by Telefonica. Of course, we have make it clear they were just comments from our side because we are still analyzing it at project level. In this respect, we have made it clear that FI-WARE hasn't approved the proposed governance model yet. I would kindly ask you to share your position regarding the current version of the document asap. In addition, we would rather appreciate if you can tell us whether you agree or not with the comments made by Telef?nica, which I would summarize as follows: * We propose that the SB do not need to follow the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. Certainly it is fine to request following such procedure in delicate matters, but not for any decision. Otherwise, we are bringing too much burocracy in the governance. * We propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". This was something that was already happening in phase 1, but you never know what may come with new projects so we believe it is important that the AB takes the role of actually monitoring that recommendations on usage of FI-WARE GEs (to be provided by FI-WARE) are actually implemented * We believe that we have to be careful when we use terms such as "overall FI-PPP business plan". We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... what is important is that we define a model of sustainability of the FI-PPP results that enables companies to implement their business plans, without the need to get them all synchronized. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. This is realistic, any other thing sounds like "wishful thinking". * We believe that our contribution to overall promotion through the third FI-WARE Open Call should be recognized and given the right value. We are bringing a lot through it that will go for the sake of the whole program (in some cases, bordering activities that we may have argued that should have been carried out by others) so therefore we cannot be asked for another 5-10% of budget for program-level activities. We can understand this is asked to new projects, and certainly the EC should secure their contribution, but that is not our case. I propose to arrange a short confcall right after Part II of the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next Monday for closing a position. Meanwhile, it would be nice that everyone circulates their comments and also provides feeback about Telefonica's comments. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:16:29 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy , Lakaniemi Ilkka CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Dear David and Ilkka, Please find enclosed Telefonica's comments on revision 3 of the governance model. Sorry for the delay sending them. Since you have shared revision 3 of the governance model with the EC already, I put them on copy. The amendments we propose regarding the AB is the most critical one. Also the comment on procedures for decisions at the SB. Both go for adopting effective and efficient improvements to the FI-PPP management structure. There are comments that have to do with suggestion for rewording of sentences that refer to "program-level business plans". I believe it is more accurate to talk about ?overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan? because sustainability of the ecosystem we aim to build is something we pursue. Such overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan should be formulated in a way that it enables major stakeholders to develop their own individual business plans coexisting with others?. Saying that we are going to define an overall business plan is too much but, I would say more, there may be partners who may wish to accelerate their business plan and not get delayed by others. An overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan is what should enable these players to actually accelerate their business plans and show the path to others. Rest of comments inserted in the document are less critical. A very important comment, despite not inserted in the text, is that Telefonica believes that the budget that FI-WARE is already putting on the table, through the 3rd Open Call, namely 4,2 M? for activities dealing with promotion of FI-WARE and creation of an innovation ecosystem bringing SMEs and entrepreneurs should be already considered a relevant contribution to the overall success of the program. This besides our contribution with resources participating in the existing WGs and governance bodies, the offering of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab to third parties, etc. Therefore, asking for additional 5-10% of the budget for additional program-level activities would be totally unfair and may impact our efforts trying to deliver a FI-WARE platform that technically brings what developers need. I'm pretty sure that if all the rest of projects, altogether, bring on the table another 4.2 M? of funding for program-level promotional activities besides resources similar to those FI-WARE is already contributing on other WGs, we can achieve a lot. Telefonica needs to understand how our contribution to the overall program success, through the launch of the 3rd Open Call, is going to be measured in terms of contribution to program-level activities before approving a text that mentions contribution of 5-10% budget to such program-level activities. This is, of course, just Telefonica's comments. We haven't yet finalized our internal discussions as to present a position of the FI-WARE project. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Fri Feb 22 15:44:28 2013 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:44:28 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model_addons Atos Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A01AD7CBA@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> HI all, I would like to complement the two points I circulated a couple of days ago with the additional feedback I got from Atos Legal Department. ? Comments/changes suggested by SAP agreed (modified version of the document circulated by Burkhard) ? In order not to include too many comments in the same document and make it unreadable, find below few complementary issues (some are reiterative, but we prefer to include them for the sake of clarity): o We suggest to include after the first paragraph of section 1. FI-PPP Phase 2 Governance organization model the following: ?For the avoidance of doubt, it is stated that decisions taken by any of the bodies described in this model with impact on the work plan committed to in Annex 1 of a Grant Agreement of an ongoing FII Project must be confirmed by the Parties of the affected FII Project and shall, for the sake of clarity, have no binding effects on such FII Project without such confirmation. None of the bodies described in this model shall have the right or authority to take decisions which are binding on any single FII Project.? o We suggest to include in the two parts of the document where ?mediation? is referred to (i.e. 3.1 and 3.3) the following: ?or, should the conflicting Parties are part of the same Consortium Agreement, provisions in such Consortium Agreement about conflict resolutions will apply.? Thanks in advance for transmitting this feedback as part of the FI-WARE team. Best regards, Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Sent: jueves, 21 de febrero de 2013 16:27 To: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Schweppe, Kathrin Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Find the detailed comments from SAPin the accompanying Word document (both as changes and comments). The new version is better than the last one, however, there is still room for improvement. We still miss an alignment with the existing collaboration agreement. This is unfortunate, because with such alignment, a lot of discussion would not be needed. A lot of things are already addressed in the existing collaboration agreement. If, for example, the chairman of the Architecture Board ignores certain tasks of the Architecture Board, this is not the fault of the Collaboration Agreement. A lot of the description of the tasks of all boards are missing. This creates confusion about the tasks of each board .It constitutes a change of the collaboration agreement through the backdoor. Speaking from a legal perspective, this is alarming, as there are partners, who do not want to stick to the rules they have agreed to two years ago. Especially, the Secretariat (run by Concord) tries to get rid of administrative tasks. The idea to elect advisory board members which have the skill set required for the EIB has not been discussed. It has not been discussed if there are other ways to improve the alignment of the FI PPP Boards and the collaboration of the partners with the partners. There are still overlaps between the boards and working groups. Concord and its Secretariat are trying to receive extra money from the other projects in order to perform the tasks as assigned to them in their respective GA. We assume, that Concord should be able to execute its tasks according to the funding they receive from the EC and according to its DOW. The role of the chairman of the Architecture Board as mediator creates a potential conflict of interest. The Chairman of the Architecture Board represents Fi-Ware as Fi-Wares chief architect. The setup creates a builtin conflict of interest. At the last page, they say, the wording should be only a supplement to the Collaboration Agreement. Then it should be no problem to include the following wording: ?The concrete tasks, composition and processes of the FI PPP Boards are regulated in the Collaboration Agreement, each beneficiary must sign. Hence, with regard to the concrete governance of the respective boards and roles, the FI PPP Collaboration Agreement prevails. ? As to Telefonicas remarks as outlined in the mail, bullets 1-4: 1. We do understand that you want to eliminate bureaucracy, but who decides what constitutes a ?delicate? matter ?. SAP would be fine for skipping the ?2 weeks? notice if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. 2. Fine with SAP 3. SAP agrees that the notion of an ?overall business plan? is indeed ill-conceived 4. We have not yet analyzed that part sufficiently. Regards, Burkhard Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 14:12 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Hi all, Regarding the third revision of the governance model I would like to transparently share with you the comments submitted by Telefonica. Of course, we have make it clear they were just comments from our side because we are still analyzing it at project level. In this respect, we have made it clear that FI-WARE hasn't approved the proposed governance model yet. I would kindly ask you to share your position regarding the current version of the document asap. In addition, we would rather appreciate if you can tell us whether you agree or not with the comments made by Telef?nica, which I would summarize as follows: * We propose that the SB do not need to follow the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. Certainly it is fine to request following such procedure in delicate matters, but not for any decision. Otherwise, we are bringing too much burocracy in the governance. * We propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". This was something that was already happening in phase 1, but you never know what may come with new projects so we believe it is important that the AB takes the role of actually monitoring that recommendations on usage of FI-WARE GEs (to be provided by FI-WARE) are actually implemented * We believe that we have to be careful when we use terms such as "overall FI-PPP business plan". We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... what is important is that we define a model of sustainability of the FI-PPP results that enables companies to implement their business plans, without the need to get them all synchronized. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. This is realistic, any other thing sounds like "wishful thinking". * We believe that our contribution to overall promotion through the third FI-WARE Open Call should be recognized and given the right value. We are bringing a lot through it that will go for the sake of the whole program (in some cases, bordering activities that we may have argued that should have been carried out by others) so therefore we cannot be asked for another 5-10% of budget for program-level activities. We can understand this is asked to new projects, and certainly the EC should secure their contribution, but that is not our case. I propose to arrange a short confcall right after Part II of the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next Monday for closing a position. Meanwhile, it would be nice that everyone circulates their comments and also provides feeback about Telefonica's comments. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:16:29 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy , Lakaniemi Ilkka CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Dear David and Ilkka, Please find enclosed Telefonica's comments on revision 3 of the governance model. Sorry for the delay sending them. Since you have shared revision 3 of the governance model with the EC already, I put them on copy. The amendments we propose regarding the AB is the most critical one. Also the comment on procedures for decisions at the SB. Both go for adopting effective and efficient improvements to the FI-PPP management structure. There are comments that have to do with suggestion for rewording of sentences that refer to "program-level business plans". I believe it is more accurate to talk about ?overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan? because sustainability of the ecosystem we aim to build is something we pursue. Such overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan should be formulated in a way that it enables major stakeholders to develop their own individual business plans coexisting with others?. Saying that we are going to define an overall business plan is too much but, I would say more, there may be partners who may wish to accelerate their business plan and not get delayed by others. An overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan is what should enable these players to actually accelerate their business plans and show the path to others. Rest of comments inserted in the document are less critical. A very important comment, despite not inserted in the text, is that Telefonica believes that the budget that FI-WARE is already putting on the table, through the 3rd Open Call, namely 4,2 M? for activities dealing with promotion of FI-WARE and creation of an innovation ecosystem bringing SMEs and entrepreneurs should be already considered a relevant contribution to the overall success of the program. This besides our contribution with resources participating in the existing WGs and governance bodies, the offering of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab to third parties, etc. Therefore, asking for additional 5-10% of the budget for additional program-level activities would be totally unfair and may impact our efforts trying to deliver a FI-WARE platform that technically brings what developers need. I'm pretty sure that if all the rest of projects, altogether, bring on the table another 4.2 M? of funding for program-level promotional activities besides resources similar to those FI-WARE is already contributing on other WGs, we can achieve a lot. Telefonica needs to understand how our contribution to the overall program success, through the launch of the 3rd Open Call, is going to be measured in terms of contribution to program-level activities before approving a text that mentions contribution of 5-10% budget to such program-level activities. This is, of course, just Telefonica's comments. We haven't yet finalized our internal discussions as to present a position of the FI-WARE project. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Feb 25 10:56:40 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:56:40 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model In-Reply-To: <51261D12.3050902@tid.es> References: <5125F3FD.2050502@tid.es> <51261D12.3050902@tid.es> Message-ID: <16995_1361786446_512B364E_16995_12_1_af8697f3-b129-4e2f-a095-37ddbfd6e40a@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Dear Juanjo, After some internal discussion I had here at Thales level here are additional comments/remarks we have and that I wanted to share with you and colleagues about this new governance structure: - The order of precedence between the collaboration agreement and the text about the new governance structure to be inserted in the grant agreement should be specified in order to avoid any future discussion in case of conflict between the two documents. - The creation of the so-called new body ?Executive Industry Board-EIB? is not contemplated under the collaboration agreement. As the attached text is not an amendment to the collaboration agreement, the validity of the EIB is questionable. - The EIB composed ?of senior executives representing the strategy and business impact or strategic marketing of the 10-15 largest leading European industry players? should according to the attached text ?advise on strategic choices and give suggestions on industrial commercialization /business strategies?. Please tell us if these composition and role are required by the commission. If it is the case, it should be clearly stated. Otherwise, the compatibility of the EIB with anti-trust laws should be addressed. - The possibility of the coordinators of the FI-PPP projects to represent the FI-PPP Project Participants is depending on the powers granted to them by such participants. If such empowerment is denied by the participants, the coordinators will not be able to play the role given to them under the attached text. Regarding comments you Telefonica made you will see in the text of your email below my position. Hope it helps. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : jeudi 21 f?vrier 2013 14:12 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Hi all, Regarding the third revision of the governance model I would like to transparently share with you the comments submitted by Telefonica. Of course, we have make it clear they were just comments from our side because we are still analyzing it at project level. In this respect, we have made it clear that FI-WARE hasn't approved the proposed governance model yet. I would kindly ask you to share your position regarding the current version of the document asap. In addition, we would rather appreciate if you can tell us whether you agree or not with the comments made by Telef?nica, which I would summarize as follows: * We propose that the SB do not need to follow the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. Certainly it is fine to request following such procedure in delicate matters, but not for any decision. Otherwise, we are bringing too much burocracy in the governance. On my side I?m in favor of the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. From my side I see it as something which can help. * We propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". This was something that was already happening in phase 1, but you never know what may come with new projects so we believe it is important that the AB takes the role of actually monitoring that recommendations on usage of FI-WARE GEs (to be provided by FI-WARE) are actually implemented That one I can only support and do hope we will gain the support of the EC to get it accepted by UC Projects Phase II. ? We believe that we have to be careful when we use terms such as "overall FI-PPP business plan". We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... what is important is that we define a model of sustainability of the FI-PPP results that enables companies to implement their business plans, without the need to get them all synchronized. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. This is realistic, any other thing sounds like "wishful thinking". I indeed believe that what you propose here is more realistic. In the meantime this should also be addressed/tackled at the FI-PPP WG devoted to this that way and be properly described (so far I see it as somehow missing so would be nice to call to get it added). * We believe that our contribution to overall promotion through the third FI-WARE Open Call should be recognized and given the right value. We are bringing a lot through it that will go for the sake of the whole program (in some cases, bordering activities that we may have argued that should have been carried out by others) so therefore we cannot be asked for another 5-10% of budget for program-level activities. We can understand this is asked to new projects, and certainly the EC should secure their contribution, but that is not our case. I can only agree here since fully justified through changes that happened at the level of the Third Open Call of FI-WARE (since no more technical but exactly addressing what is requested here aka Overall promotion & program level activities). I propose to arrange a short confcall right after Part II of the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next Monday for closing a position. Meanwhile, it would be nice that everyone circulates their comments and also provides feeback about Telefonica's comments. Unfortunately and due to other commitments I have I would not be able to join the audio conf after the WPL/WPAs joint audio. Apologize. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:16:29 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy , Lakaniemi Ilkka CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Dear David and Ilkka, Please find enclosed Telefonica's comments on revision 3 of the governance model. Sorry for the delay sending them. Since you have shared revision 3 of the governance model with the EC already, I put them on copy. The amendments we propose regarding the AB is the most critical one. Also the comment on procedures for decisions at the SB. Both go for adopting effective and efficient improvements to the FI-PPP management structure. There are comments that have to do with suggestion for rewording of sentences that refer to "program-level business plans". I believe it is more accurate to talk about ?overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan? because sustainability of the ecosystem we aim to build is something we pursue. Such overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan should be formulated in a way that it enables major stakeholders to develop their own individual business plans coexisting with others?. Saying that we are going to define an overall business plan is too much but, I would say more, there may be partners who may wish to accelerate their business plan and not get delayed by others. An overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan is what should enable these players to actually accelerate their business plans and show the path to others. Rest of comments inserted in the document are less critical. A very important comment, despite not inserted in the text, is that Telefonica believes that the budget that FI-WARE is already putting on the table, through the 3rd Open Call, namely 4,2 M? for activities dealing with promotion of FI-WARE and creation of an innovation ecosystem bringing SMEs and entrepreneurs should be already considered a relevant contribution to the overall success of the program. This besides our contribution with resources participating in the existing WGs and governance bodies, the offering of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab to third parties, etc. Therefore, asking for additional 5-10% of the budget for additional program-level activities would be totally unfair and may impact our efforts trying to deliver a FI-WARE platform that technically brings what developers need. I'm pretty sure that if all the rest of projects, altogether, bring on the table another 4.2 M? of funding for program-level promotional activities besides resources similar to those FI-WARE is already contributing on other WGs, we can achieve a lot. Telefonica needs to understand how our contribution to the overall program success, through the launch of the 3rd Open Call, is going to be measured in terms of contribution to program-level activities before approving a text that mentions contribution of 5-10% budget to such program-level activities. This is, of course, just Telefonica's comments. We haven't yet finalized our internal discussions as to present a position of the FI-WARE project. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 07:53:23 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:53:23 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects In-Reply-To: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <512C5BE3.9090007@tid.es> Dear all, We received this letter from the EC on Friday. Apologizes for not forwarding it to you earlier. I believe that we should try to come up with a position on behalf of FI-WARE. It shouldn't be so difficult. For this reason, I will call for a confcall tomorrow. Please make sure you attend with a representative. I have setup the following doodle for closing the best timeslot but please be aware that I will close the doodle poll at 13:00 CET today and then I will announce the final timeslot after that. So far, I have only seen the comments by SAP as well as those from Telefonica. At least, we should be able to forward to the EC: * a list of comments in which we can reach consensus * a list of points where different partners have different views My interpretation is that we may reach consensus regarding the following points: * Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1 * Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. * Skip the "2 weeks" notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced "by ambush" (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... * Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". * Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. Also regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 MEUR) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. My interpretation regarding different views on some specific points is that we only differ in which document should prevail, the DoW or the Collaboration Agreement. Some parties (e.g., Telefonica) believe we can use modifications of the DoW to fast-track changes which may later be incorporated in the Collaboration Agreement, while other parties (I understand SAP) believe that no changes should be introduced anywhere other than in the Collaboration Agreement which should be referred as the main source and prevail over contents of the DoW. I would like to discuss, during our PCC meeting tomorrow, what we can forward to the EC as a summary of the position of FI-WARE, hopefully a summary like the above. I will also send an email to the rest of partners in FI-WARE so that they can send us their input prior to our PCC call. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit [cid:part1.03050109.08030409 at tid.es] European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Note JV to FIPPP COs on Gov (120213)_RB.doc.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80526 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 847101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 08:02:53 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:02:53 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects In-Reply-To: <512C5BE3.9090007@tid.es> References: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <512C5BE3.9090007@tid.es> Message-ID: <512C5E1D.8080000@tid.es> Doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2pnhb6xpw7g8wat9 IMPORTANT: marking a time as Ok means you agree to join the confcall starting at that time and for a maximum duration of 1h30m Cheers, -- Juanjo On 26/02/13 07:53, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear all, We received this letter from the EC on Friday. Apologizes for not forwarding it to you earlier. I believe that we should try to come up with a position on behalf of FI-WARE. It shouldn't be so difficult. For this reason, I will call for a confcall tomorrow. Please make sure you attend with a representative. I have setup the following doodle for closing the best timeslot but please be aware that I will close the doodle poll at 13:00 CET today and then I will announce the final timeslot after that. So far, I have only seen the comments by SAP as well as those from Telefonica. At least, we should be able to forward to the EC: * a list of comments in which we can reach consensus * a list of points where different partners have different views My interpretation is that we may reach consensus regarding the following points: * Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1 * Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. * Skip the "2 weeks" notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced "by ambush" (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... * Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". * Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. Also regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 MEUR) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. My interpretation regarding different views on some specific points is that we only differ in which document should prevail, the DoW or the Collaboration Agreement. Some parties (e.g., Telefonica) believe we can use modifications of the DoW to fast-track changes which may later be incorporated in the Collaboration Agreement, while other parties (I understand SAP) believe that no changes should be introduced anywhere other than in the Collaboration Agreement which should be referred as the main source and prevail over contents of the DoW. I would like to discuss, during our PCC meeting tomorrow, what we can forward to the EC as a summary of the position of FI-WARE, hopefully a summary like the above. I will also send an email to the rest of partners in FI-WARE so that they can send us their input prior to our PCC call. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit [cid:part48.08080104.02070709 at tid.es] European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 08:06:22 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:06:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects In-Reply-To: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <512C5EEE.1050702@tid.es> Dear partners in FI-WARE, The EC is asking us to come to a conclusion on the new governance model they would like to introduce in contracts of projects active in phase 2 of the FI-PPP (this includes FI-WARE, via an amendment). The FI-WARE PCC (Project Coordinator Committee) will meet tomorrow as to be able to agree on a common set of comments to be forwarded to the EC. In the event you have any comment regarding the last draft version of the Governance Model, please forward them before EOB today so that we can take it into consideration during our discussion. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit [cid:part1.02080604.06040207 at tid.es] European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Note JV to FIPPP COs on Gov (120213)_RB.doc.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80526 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 847101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Tue Feb 26 10:27:35 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects In-Reply-To: <512C5BE3.9090007@tid.es> References: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <512C5BE3.9090007@tid.es> Message-ID: <18043_1361870856_512C8008_18043_2383_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0A0B97@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all, Some comments to prepare the PCC meeting : ? Skip the 2 weeks notice?: we are demonstrating that we can organize quickly a meeting to discuss a programme issue. The idea of the 2 weeks notice is the same but for a General Assembly for each project to collect comments from all partners in a dedicated project so the next SB will be able to discuss all proposals and come with a new one which should be the consensus, but this new proposal has to be submitted also to the GA? So we need this 2 weeks notice to be able to validate some decisions maybe in 2 or 3 months? ? Dissemination resources: I?m not sure that all partners consume regularly Dissemination resources so we could say also that Fi-Ware dissemination resources should be also used for these common dissemination activities. ? One question regarding your status Juanjo to anticipate some additional question: if you become the new Fi-Ware Project Coordinator, you are also the AB Chairman and you will have ?2 votes? at the SB for a single seat. We could have some comments from the other projects. Of course this question will happen only after the end of the negotiations but this is just to clarify the point. BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 07:53 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Dear all, We received this letter from the EC on Friday. Apologizes for not forwarding it to you earlier. I believe that we should try to come up with a position on behalf of FI-WARE. It shouldn't be so difficult. For this reason, I will call for a confcall tomorrow. Please make sure you attend with a representative. I have setup the following doodle for closing the best timeslot but please be aware that I will close the doodle poll at 13:00 CET today and then I will announce the final timeslot after that. So far, I have only seen the comments by SAP as well as those from Telefonica. At least, we should be able to forward to the EC: * a list of comments in which we can reach consensus * a list of points where different partners have different views My interpretation is that we may reach consensus regarding the following points: * Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1 * Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. * Skip the ?2 weeks? notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... * Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". * Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. Also regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 M?) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. My interpretation regarding different views on some specific points is that we only differ in which document should prevail, the DoW or the Collaboration Agreement. Some parties (e.g., Telefonica) believe we can use modifications of the DoW to fast-track changes which may later be incorporated in the Collaboration Agreement, while other parties (I understand SAP) believe that no changes should be introduced anywhere other than in the Collaboration Agreement which should be referred as the main source and prevail over contents of the DoW. I would like to discuss, during our PCC meeting tomorrow, what we can forward to the EC as a summary of the position of FI-WARE, hopefully a summary like the above. I will also send an email to the rest of partners in FI-WARE so that they can send us their input prior to our PCC call. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE140B.E486D340] European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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, France Telecom - 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, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 14:28:21 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:28:21 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE Confcall tomorrow Message-ID: <368B36BA-2AFB-41EB-AFEC-BE043A3526B7@tid.es> Based on results of the doodle poll, we'll have the confcall tomorrow at 09:30 CET Bridge details will be sent later Enviado desde mi iPhone ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 18:27:22 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:27:22 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall Message-ID: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FE13B0@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> When: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:30 AM-11:00 AM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* FI-WARE PCC confcall to close comments to send on behalf of FI-WARE regarding the new proposed governance model We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2166 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Tue Feb 26 18:34:48 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:34:48 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall In-Reply-To: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FE13B0@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FE13B0@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <25474_1361900091_512CF23B_25474_19_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E1726D48@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Ju anjo, Unfortunately from my side I wouldn't be able to attend tomorrow pcc audio. This due to other duties I have tomorrow and that I couldn't de-command. Apologize and yes will catch up through the minutes made. Best Regards, Pascal -----Rendez-vous d'origine----- De : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 18:27 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall Date : mercredi 27 f?vrier 2013 09:30-11:00 (GMT+01:00) Bruxelles, Copenhague, Madrid, Paris. O? : FI-WARE PCC confcall to close comments to send on behalf of FI-WARE regarding the new proposed governance model We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 << Fichier: ATT00001.txt >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 18:40:06 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:40:06 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall In-Reply-To: <25474_1361900091_512CF23B_25474_19_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E1726D48@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> References: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FE13B0@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <25474_1361900091_512CF23B_25474_19_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E1726D48@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <512CF376.9030703@tid.es> Ok. Maybe you can provide feedback regarding the list of comments on the current governance model I believe we can agree on: * Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1 * Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. * Skip the "2 weeks" notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced "by ambush" (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... * Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". * Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. * Regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 MEUR) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 26/02/13 18:34, BISSON Pascal wrote: Dear Ju anjo, Unfortunately from my side I wouldn't be able to attend tomorrow pcc audio. This due to other duties I have tomorrow and that I couldn't de-command. Apologize and yes will catch up through the minutes made. Best Regards, Pascal -----Rendez-vous d'origine----- De : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 18:27 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall Date : mercredi 27 f?vrier 2013 09:30-11:00 (GMT+01:00) Bruxelles, Copenhague, Madrid, Paris. O? : FI-WARE PCC confcall to close comments to send on behalf of FI-WARE regarding the new proposed governance model We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 << Fichier: ATT00001.txt >> ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Feb 26 18:56:05 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:56:05 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects In-Reply-To: <18043_1361870856_512C8008_18043_2383_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0A0B97@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <8E26F5DBBC82CC47ADC40BEA2B6E4469284193CC@S-DC-ESTB04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <512C5BE3.9090007@tid.es> <18043_1361870856_512C8008_18043_2383_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0A0B97@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <512CF735.4020308@tid.es> Dear Thierry, Thanks for your comments. Response between lines: On 26/02/13 10:27, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Dear all, Some comments to prepare the PCC meeting : ? Skip the 2 weeks notice?: we are demonstrating that we can organize quickly a meeting to discuss a programme issue. The idea of the 2 weeks notice is the same but for a General Assembly for each project to collect comments from all partners in a dedicated project so the next SB will be able to discuss all proposals and come with a new one which should be the consensus, but this new proposal has to be submitted also to the GA? So we need this 2 weeks notice to be able to validate some decisions maybe in 2 or 3 months? I believe that we all agree that this 2 weeks notice is needed for critical points. The issue here is being able to address non-critical questions on the SB "on the fly" without delaying decisions one month just because nobody had identified them prior to the SB meeting. ? Dissemination resources: I?m not sure that all partners consume regularly Dissemination resources so we could say also that Fi-Ware dissemination resources should be also used for these common dissemination activities. So ... are you saying that we should take the funding from to those FI-WARE partners in the Collaboration, Communication and Dissemination WP who are not currently active in Dissemination activities and tell them that the funding will be translated to a pool of funding we will devote to global FI-PPP Dissemination activities ? My comments: * I guess it won't be too easy * I'm afraid that this is far from the funding that the EC is now asking for ... ? One question regarding your status Juanjo to anticipate some additional question: if you become the new Fi-Ware Project Coordinator, you are also the AB Chairman and you will have ?2 votes? at the SB for a single seat. We could have some comments from the other projects. Of course this question will happen only after the end of the negotiations but this is just to clarify the point. As far as I know, decisions in the SB have to be taken unanimously. The Collaboration Agreement actually states the following: Unless otherwise provided for in this Collaboration Agreement, recommendations or decisions of the Steering Board shall require the support of all member Parties present or represented by proxy at a quorate meeting (as set forth below) of the Steering Board So that means there are no votes as such. What you have are "voices" in the SB of people representing a project. Now, it is being proposed that projects have two seats in the SB, meaning "2 voices". In our case, I would presume that I would be in the SB (together with someone else we have to decide) and sometimes I will talk as "coordinator" of FI-WARE and sometimes as "AB chairman". Honestly, don't see this is a major issue. If there were voting, then we should clarify how I would vote ... but since there is no voting ... Cheers, -- Juanjo BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 07:53 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Dear all, We received this letter from the EC on Friday. Apologizes for not forwarding it to you earlier. I believe that we should try to come up with a position on behalf of FI-WARE. It shouldn't be so difficult. For this reason, I will call for a confcall tomorrow. Please make sure you attend with a representative. I have setup the following doodle for closing the best timeslot but please be aware that I will close the doodle poll at 13:00 CET today and then I will announce the final timeslot after that. So far, I have only seen the comments by SAP as well as those from Telefonica. At least, we should be able to forward to the EC: * a list of comments in which we can reach consensus * a list of points where different partners have different views My interpretation is that we may reach consensus regarding the following points: * Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1 * Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. * Skip the ?2 weeks? notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... * Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". * Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. Also regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 M?) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. My interpretation regarding different views on some specific points is that we only differ in which document should prevail, the DoW or the Collaboration Agreement. Some parties (e.g., Telefonica) believe we can use modifications of the DoW to fast-track changes which may later be incorporated in the Collaboration Agreement, while other parties (I understand SAP) believe that no changes should be introduced anywhere other than in the Collaboration Agreement which should be referred as the main source and prevail over contents of the DoW. I would like to discuss, during our PCC meeting tomorrow, what we can forward to the EC as a summary of the position of FI-WARE, hopefully a summary like the above. I will also send an email to the rest of partners in FI-WARE so that they can send us their input prior to our PCC call. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit [cid:part48.00040206.02050606 at tid.es] European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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, France Telecom - 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, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Tue Feb 26 22:16:12 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:16:12 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Message-ID: Dear Juanjo and all We attach IBM's comments in two parts. First, let me point out that most of our comments in the previous version (attached) were not included in the updated version, so we request to make these changes in this draft. I'm sure you'll agree that it's important to ensure that all comments are approriately represented, to allow a meaningful discussion between the partners on this topic. Here are the points again: section 2.3 - The Architecture Board (AB) will be in charge of advise on the technical aspects and implementation of the programme. section 3.2 - The SB approves and defines reviews the overall coordination among projects and milestones for the projects. section 3.5 - The individual projects commit to reserve reasonable funds and allocate staff for each working group within their respective work plans. The PC can not "mediate" between the parties. It can not replace the dispute resolution mechanism in the Collaboration Agreement. The PC does not have the authority to make a decision re conflicts between the parties. coordinators can not have a mandate to decide on behalf of the project parties. Please ask to delete the following sentence and any other sentence which provides such mandate. Section 4.2 - PrCs (Project Coordinators - gl) have the responsibility to discuss proposals for SB decisions in their project in good time and to get the mandate from their consortium to to discuss, negotiate and decide on the SB agenda items. .................. Secondly, here are more important comments inline of your email from today ----- Forwarded by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM on 26/02/2013 08:59 AM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 26/02/2013 08:54 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, We received this letter from the EC on Friday. Apologizes for not forwarding it to you earlier. I believe that we should try to come up with a position on behalf of FI-WARE. It shouldn't be so difficult. For this reason, I will call for a confcall tomorrow. Please make sure you attend with a representative. I have setup the following doodle for closing the best timeslot but please be aware that I will close the doodle poll at 13:00 CET today and then I will announce the final timeslot after that. So far, I have only seen the comments by SAP as well as those from Telefonica. At least, we should be able to forward to the EC: a list of comments in which we can reach consensus a list of points where different partners have different views My interpretation is that we may reach consensus regarding the following points: Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1. IBM: ok Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. Agree. IBM: This point is Critical to us. Skip the ?2 weeks? notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... IBM: Not clear to us. Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". IBM: OK Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. IBM: OK Also regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 M?) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. IBM: OK My interpretation regarding different views on some specific points is that we only differ in which document should prevail, the DoW or the Collaboration Agreement. Some parties (e.g., Telefonica) believe we can use modifications of the DoW to fast-track changes which may later be incorporated in the Collaboration Agreement, while other parties (I understand SAP) believe that no changes should be introduced anywhere other than in the Collaboration Agreement which should be referred as the main source and prevail over contents of the DoW. IBM: We strongly support SAP position on this. I would like to discuss, during our PCC meeting tomorrow, what we can forward to the EC as a summary of the position of FI-WARE, hopefully a summary like the above. I will also send an email to the rest of partners in FI-WARE so that they can send us their input prior to our PCC call. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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[attachment "Note JV to FIPPP COs on Gov (120213)_RB.doc.pdf" deleted by Galit Leider/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx.pdf" deleted by Galit Leider/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure_Feb 11 2013_IBM.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 311611 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 01:53:10 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:53:10 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283537 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 01:53:32 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:53:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <512D590C.7000402@tid.es> FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283537 bytes Desc: not available URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 07:49:10 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:49:10 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> References: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo and all IBM's comments are attached and reflected in the document. Truthfully, these are only the most important ones we have on R4. There are more, but at this stage, before today's meeting, we should focus on handling those key points. Summary of Key Comments from IBM. * In 3.3, the AB *advices* on technical aspects (not *in charge*). * In 3.3, Changed the text on *mediation*. Pls note, mediation cannot be enforced, and moreover professional mediation very costly - I assume the partners will not want to commit to this expense up front. * In 4.2, removed the text which implies that PrC can make decisions on behalf of the project parties. Critical point. Best Regards Yaron From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 27/02/2013 02:53 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez ( federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' ( anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word ?ensure? to ?oversee? which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM ? European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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[attachment "Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213.docx" deleted by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-4_260213 IBM Key Comments.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 272664 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Wed Feb 27 08:54:48 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:54:48 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall In-Reply-To: <512CF376.9030703@tid.es> References: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FE13B0@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <25474_1361900091_512CF23B_25474_19_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E1726D48@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> <512CF376.9030703@tid.es> Message-ID: <26914_1361951911_512DBCA7_26914_59_1_296abb9b-41f5-4d8f-8b6a-9960c48891c7@THSONEA01HUB03P.one.grp> Dear Juanjo, Please refer to the mail I sent you on lundi 25 f?vrier 2013 10:57 (that I?ve just forwarded to you just in case you couldn?t retrieve it) with my responses to changes you already proposed . You will see there my answers to your points below stated in your email. BTW see also some additional comments made in this email from our side and for which I must say I haven?t heard from your side. And for audio conf of today will catch up on trough the minutes since unfortunately I can?t attend (this time). Best Regards, Pascal De : Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 18:40 ? : BISSON Pascal Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: FI-WARE PCC confcall Ok. Maybe you can provide feedback regarding the list of comments on the current governance model I believe we can agree on: * Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. * New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1 * Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. * Skip the ?2 weeks? notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced ?by ambush? (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers. -- question aside ... * Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". * Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. * Regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 M?) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 26/02/13 18:34, BISSON Pascal wrote: Dear Ju anjo, Unfortunately from my side I wouldn?t be able to attend tomorrow pcc audio. This due to other duties I have tomorrow and that I couldn?t de-command. Apologize and yes will catch up through the minutes made. Best Regards, Pascal -----Rendez-vous d'origine----- De : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 18:27 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall Date : mercredi 27 f?vrier 2013 09:30-11:00 (GMT+01:00) Bruxelles, Copenhague, Madrid, Paris. O? : FI-WARE PCC confcall to close comments to send on behalf of FI-WARE regarding the new proposed governance model We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 << Fichier: ATT00001.txt >> ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 09:30:18 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:30:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Shared minutes in Google docs Message-ID: <512DC41A.3010007@tid.es> Hi, I have prepared a shared document in Google docs as minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qUeZWl1iyi4v0Egr6PVnnGHwDLkkaX9mMiQpSXOLHQQ/edit?usp=sharing Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 12:38:18 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:38:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Message-ID: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Wed Feb 27 12:54:21 2013 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:54:21 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A01BB39F8@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Thank you Juanjo for the summary. A comment for our Thales colleagues. Do not forget that the Industry Board was proposed by Thales in the Task Force on the FI PPP Governance structure that was created in July after the first meeting with the EC. Thales was great supporter together with many other companies. However, I may agree with the fact that the description is not good or does not make sense as it is now. Still, we should be careful in the way we formulate our concerns so that it does not seem that we -ourselves- enter in contradiction with previous proposals. My two cents. Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: mi?rcoles, 27 de febrero de 2013 12:38 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com Wed Feb 27 13:42:03 2013 From: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com (Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Message-ID: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: "Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB." As to the EIB: SAP also needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 12:38 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Wed Feb 27 14:36:21 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:36:21 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Message-ID: <4972_1361972407_512E0CB6_4972_4_2_6d0c6740-b205-4e3a-bfbb-f75be469fc0b@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Dear Juanjo, >From our Thales we just provided you with the following comments to EIB on for which so far we didn't get any feedback from your side. To my knowledge we never said we were against EIB integration but just wanted to get some clarification on the EIB in view of the concerns raised: - The creation of the so-called new body "Executive Industry Board-EIB" is not contemplated under the collaboration agreement. As the attached text is not an amendment to the collaboration agreement, the validity of the EIB is questionable. - The EIB composed "of senior executives representing the strategy and business impact or strategic marketing of the 10-15 largest leading European industry players" should according to the attached text "advise on strategic choices and give suggestions on industrial commercialization /business strategies". Please tell us if these composition and role are required by the commission. If it is the case, it should be clearly stated. Otherwise, the compatibility of the EIB with anti-trust laws should be addressed. Other comments we formulated and for which we'd like also to hear from you as Project Coordinator were the following ones: - The order of precedence between the collaboration agreement and the text about the new governance structure to be inserted in the grant agreement should be specified in order to avoid any future discussion in case of conflict between the two documents. - The possibility of the coordinators of the FI-PPP projects to represent the FI-PPP Project Participants is depending on the powers granted to them by such participants. If such empowerment is denied by the participants, the coordinators will not be able to play the role given to them under the attached text. Hearing from you and hope I've clarified. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 27 f?vrier 2013 12:38 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 15:12:07 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:12:07 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <4972_1361972407_512E0CB6_4972_4_2_6d0c6740-b205-4e3a-bfbb-f75be469fc0b@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> <4972_1361972407_512E0CB6_4972_4_2_6d0c6740-b205-4e3a-bfbb-f75be469fc0b@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <512E1437.4010302@tid.es> Sorry but you didn't clarify too much :-) ... comments between lines On 27/02/13 14:36, BISSON Pascal wrote: Dear Juanjo, >From our Thales we just provided you with the following comments to EIB on for which so far we didn't get any feedback from your side. To my knowledge we never said we were against EIB integration but just wanted to get some clarification on the EIB in view of the concerns raised: - The creation of the so-called new body "Executive Industry Board-EIB" is not contemplated under the collaboration agreement. As the attached text is not an amendment to the collaboration agreement, the validity of the EIB is questionable. - The EIB composed "of senior executives representing the strategy and business impact or strategic marketing of the 10-15 largest leading European industry players" should according to the attached text "advise on strategic choices and give suggestions on industrial commercialization /business strategies". Please tell us if these composition and role are required by the commission. If it is the case, it should be clearly stated. Otherwise, the compatibility of the EIB with anti-trust laws should be addressed. Yes, the EIB is not contemplated under the Collaboration Agreement. As far as I understand, the EIB was proposed during the meeting with the Deputy Director General Zoran Stancic on 3 July 2012, where industry actors of the FI-PPP expressed their need to be more involved in the steering of the FI-PPP. Indeed, I have been told that the creation of such EIB was proposed by partners present at that meeting as one mean to address the recommendations given in the Interim Assessment of the Future Internet PPP published in May 2012. Several drafts of the governance model have been circulated since then so I'm surprised that this suprise you. Indeed was also tackled in the negotiation workshop in Brussels you attended. Regarding position of the EC, my impresion is that they welcome creation and role of the EIB as proposed (indeed, they had initially proposed a more executive role instead of and advisory role, but some partners didn't agree and it seems like the only way to reach some consensus was to assign it an advisory role). Here there are two points about which you have to make a position so that I can summarize it in the email to be sent to the EC this afternoon/evening: * Whether you agree with creation of this EIB or not, with the role described in the latest governance model draft * Whether you agree that an approach to introduce this new body in the governance model is by means of incorporating the text describing the governance model in the DoWs. I undertand that the EC believes this is a proper procedure because then it may be argued that the DoW prevails over the Consortium and Collaboration Agreements. However, some partners (IBM, SAP) have mentioned that they don't agree this is a valid approach. You should make it clear whether you agree this is valid or not. Note that you may agree with the first point but object to the approach. Other comments we formulated and for which we'd like also to hear from you as Project Coordinator were the following ones: - The order of precedence between the collaboration agreement and the text about the new governance structure to be inserted in the grant agreement should be specified in order to avoid any future discussion in case of conflict between the two documents. This is not something about which the opinion of the Project Coordinator matters. During our PCC call, we have agreed to ask the EC what is their interpretation and what they plan to do to make it clear. We also have agreed to make it explicit that some partners do object to the rule that the DoW prevails over the Consortium and Collaboration Agreement. Others, like Telefonica, have explained they agree that the DoW prevails and therefore introducing changes in the DoW could be seen as a way to make some fast-track amendments to the Collaboration Agreement, overall with regards to changes that do not break the spirit of the Collaboration Agreement. You have to make your mind about what is Thales position. - The possibility of the coordinators of the FI-PPP projects to represent the FI-PPP Project Participants is depending on the powers granted to them by such participants. If such empowerment is denied by the participants, the coordinators will not be able to play the role given to them under the attached text. This is related to the text in section 4.2 and we have agreed to point out the issue to the EC and tell them that we are trying to find a better wording. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hearing from you and hope I've clarified. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 27 f?vrier 2013 12:38 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 15:16:02 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:16:02 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Message-ID: <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> On 27/02/13 13:42, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: "Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB." This is fine to me. Unless I hear about any objection before 16:30, I will include this text as proposed text in the email to be sent to the EC. As to the EIB: SAP also needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. I'll explain in the email that SAP needs to double-check whether it can live with inclusion of the EIB and what are your major concerns in that respect. Cheers, -- Juanjo Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 12:38 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Wed Feb 27 15:29:12 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:29:12 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear All, I have inserted a short comment below (check for [PG]). BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 27 febbraio 2013 15:16 A: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 13:42, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: "Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB." This is fine to me. Unless I hear about any objection before 16:30, I will include this text as proposed text in the email to be sent to the EC. [PG] didn't we define in the call this morning, that the reference to the Consortium Agreement could be substituted by a wording like e.g. 'and the individual projects internal procedures' ? As to the EIB: SAP also needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. I'll explain in the email that SAP needs to double-check whether it can live with inclusion of the EIB and what are your major concerns in that respect. Cheers, -- Juanjo Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 12:38 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Feb 27 15:37:53 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:37:53 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> Message-ID: <16501_1361975874_512E1A42_16501_3187_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0A2BF4@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all, As explained during the call this morning the Consortium Agreement is a contract only between partners of the project, so it is unknown by the Commission. We should use the formulation propose by Pier. BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Garino Pierangelo Envoy? : mercredi 27 f?vrier 2013 15:29 ? : Juanjo Hierro; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Dear All, I have inserted a short comment below (check for [PG]). BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 27 febbraio 2013 15:16 A: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 13:42, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: "Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB." This is fine to me. Unless I hear about any objection before 16:30, I will include this text as proposed text in the email to be sent to the EC. [PG] didn't we define in the call this morning, that the reference to the Consortium Agreement could be substituted by a wording like e.g. 'and the individual projects internal procedures' ? As to the EIB: SAP also needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. I'll explain in the email that SAP needs to double-check whether it can live with inclusion of the EIB and what are your major concerns in that respect. Cheers, -- Juanjo Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 12:38 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: * Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text * Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. * Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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, France Telecom - 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, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 677 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 15:39:53 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:39:53 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> Message-ID: <512E1AB9.7070904@tid.es> On 27/02/13 15:29, Garino Pierangelo wrote: Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 27 febbraio 2013 15:16 A: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 13:42, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: "Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB." This is fine to me. Unless I hear about any objection before 16:30, I will include this text as proposed text in the email to be sent to the EC. [PG] didn't we define in the call this morning, that the reference to the Consortium Agreement could be substituted by a wording like e.g. 'and the individual projects internal procedures' ? Good point Pier, you are right. I'm happy with your proposed amendment ... What about you Burkhard ? Best regards, -- Juanjo ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com Wed Feb 27 15:48:38 2013 From: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com (Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:48:38 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <512E1AB9.7070904@tid.es> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> <512E1AB9.7070904@tid.es> Message-ID: Fine with me. Burkhard From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 15:40 To: Garino Pierangelo Cc: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: R: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 15:29, Garino Pierangelo wrote: Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 27 febbraio 2013 15:16 A: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 13:42, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: "Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB." This is fine to me. Unless I hear about any objection before 16:30, I will include this text as proposed text in the email to be sent to the EC. [PG] didn't we define in the call this morning, that the reference to the Consortium Agreement could be substituted by a wording like e.g. 'and the individual projects internal procedures' ? Good point Pier, you are right. I'm happy with your proposed amendment ... What about you Burkhard ? Best regards, -- Juanjo ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 15:52:56 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:52:56 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> <512E1522.6060105@tid.es> <512E1AB9.7070904@tid.es> Message-ID: I will provide IBM's response within the next 45 minutes. From: "Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard" To: Juanjo Hierro , Garino Pierangelo , Cc: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 27/02/2013 04:48 PM Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Fine with me. Burkhard From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 15:40 To: Garino Pierangelo Cc: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: R: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 15:29, Garino Pierangelo wrote: Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 27 febbraio 2013 15:16 A: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) On 27/02/13 13:42, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote: Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: ?Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB.? This is fine to me. Unless I hear about any objection before 16:30, I will include this text as proposed text in the email to be sent to the EC. [PG] didn?t we define in the call this morning, that the reference to the Consortium Agreement could be substituted by a wording like e.g. ?and the individual projects internal procedures? ? Good point Pier, you are right. I'm happy with your proposed amendment ... What about you Burkhard ? Best regards, -- Juanjo Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 16:14:15 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:14:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Message-ID: IBM is OK with this formulation proposed by SAP (and the later suggestion to replace "Consortium Agreement" by "Internal Project Procedures". From: "Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard" To: Juanjo Hierro , "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 27/02/2013 02:42 PM Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Hello everybody, here is the proposed text from SAP legal regarding the steering board mandates: ?Project Coordinators should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects Consortium Agreement with all project partners and get the necessary mandate together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB.? As to the EIB: SAP also needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich 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. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 12:38 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Wed Feb 27 16:27:22 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:27:22 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) In-Reply-To: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> References: <512DF02A.2050008@tid.es> Message-ID: On the EIB (thanks, Juanjo, for summarizing this as follows) - ======= Here there are two points about which you have to make a position so that I can summarize it in the email to be sent to the EC this afternoon/evening: Whether you agree with creation of this EIB or not, with the role described in the latest governance model draft Whether you agree that an approach to introduce this new body in the governance model is by means of incorporating the text describing the governance model in the DoWs. I undertand that the EC believes this is a proper procedure because then it may be argued that the DoW prevails over the Consortium and Collaboration Agreements. However, some partners (IBM, SAP) have mentioned that they don't agree this is a valid approach. You should make it clear whether you agree this is valid or not. ======== IBM prefers to continue the discussion on the first point (as we saw, there are several concerns by some partners) prior to deciding. IBM does not accept the second point (IBM does not view incorporating text describing EIB in DoW is as a valid approach). Thanks Yaron From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 27/02/2013 01:38 PM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM) Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi all, Please take a look at the minutes which I have finalized in the shared Google doc. Telefonica will prepare an email to be sent to the EC where we will explain that there is general consensus among the partners about the incorporation of comments 1-6 discussed in the call (as per agreement captured in these minutes) but there is still disagreement on the following points: Mandate of Project Coordinators at the SB: we will explain which was the paragraph where the conflict is located and we will explain we are working in alternative text Prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement: Here, SAP and IBM object using the DoW as mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the governance model. We will ask the EC about clarification on their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. Inclusion of the EIB. Here, Thales and SAP seem to disagree with their inclusion. IBM will double-check whether they can live with that part. I would kindly ask Thales, SAP and IBM to explicitly confirm, in response to this mail whether it is right that they object to the inclusion of the EIB and/or the wording associated to that inclusion. This part was discussed while SAP was not at the meeting so I want to make a final double-check. IBM took the AP to come to us with a response. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Feb 27 16:47:54 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:47:54 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <512E2A92.6020602@tid.es> References: <512E2A92.6020602@tid.es> Message-ID: <512E2AAA.30706@tid.es> FYI, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:47:30 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy , Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Lakaniemi Ilkka , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Dear David, Ilkka and members of the EC, This email tries to summarize the consensus in FI-WARE regarding the proposed Governance Model document. There is agreement (with no expressed objection) that the following comments should be taken into account regarding the proposed document: * Regarding description of the SB, the AB and the PMO (Secretariat) the document should include the list of tasks for these bodies that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement. The lists of tasks proposed for each body in the latest draft may be considered a subset of the corresponding tasks listed in the Collaboration Agreement. If some of the tasks listed in the Collaboration Agreement are not listed in the governance document, it may be interpreted like that task is not longer valid. However, we believe that all the tasks listed in the Collaboration Agreement for each of the mentioned bodies is still valid. The easiest solution would be to copy the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement in the new Governance Model document. * Given said the above, clarifications or further development of the description of some tasks may be feasible. Indeed, we propose to further develop/refine the following tasks assigned to the AB in the Collaboration Agreement: * task: "continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program, evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical divergence" in the CA --> We propose to copy the description but add the following sentence: "As an example, continuously monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects." * task: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities" in the CA --> We propose to add "carried out in the Standardization Working Group" * Regarding mediation in the SB and the AB, we propose the following: * AB: a mediator would be selected among the AB members based on agreement by the projects in conflict (rationale, in many cases FI-WARE will be one of the parties in conflict and therefore there may be a conflict of interest if the AB chairman mediates) * SB: the program chairman may play the role of mediator if the conflict doesn't involve CONCORD. It it does, then same procedure as with the AB would apply * We don't agree to make reference to "overall FI-PPP business plans" in the description of the . Following is the text that we would like to propose: * Business impact and Exploitation Working Group: The main objective of the Business Impact and Exploitation Working Group is to maximise the impact and exploitation potential of the FI-PPP Programme and the individual FI-PPP projects. The WG facilitates and monitors the discussion on sustainability and enablement of the exploitation of FI-PPP results. The WG guides the development of project-level "value networks" based on appropriate business cases and exploitation plans, and facilitates the creation of exploitation and impact synergies across the Programme. This will involve collecting the terms and conditions for third-party and post-programme use of the results from the IRP owners as well as stimulating the engagement of SMEs, user groups and web entrepreneurs. This WG requires the participation of all FI-PPP projects, especially FI-WARE as regards the exploitation of Generic Enablers, and requires the contribution of the individual IPR owners of individual results. The Business Impact Manager is the leader of this Working Group. * Regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, we believe that it should be recognized that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of its budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 MEUR) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. In general, the rule of booking 5-10% of the budget/funding may create problems funding the technical activities dealing with development of the FI-WARE platform. * Regarding mandate of Project Coordinators as described in section 4.2, particularly the paragraph saying: "PrCs have the responsibility to discuss proposals for SB decisions in their project in good time and to get the mandate from their consortium to to discuss, negotiate and decide on the SB agenda items.". We propose to replace it by "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures involving all project partners and get the necessary mandate, together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium, to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB" Besides this, there are a number of points about which no agreement has not yet been reached. Therefore, we would like to describe such disagreements: * There is no agreement regarding prevalence of the DoW over the Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement. SAP, IBM and maybe Thales object using the DoW as a mechanism for fast-tracking changes in the Collaboration Agreement, such as changes in the governance model. Others like Telefonica will agree that the DoW prevails and therefore introducing changes in the DoW could be seen as a way to make some fast-track amendments to the Collaboration Agreement, overall with regards to changes that do not break the spirit of the Collaboration Agreement. We would kindly ask the EC to clarify their position about prevalence of the DoW, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. We suggest that any prevalence rule should be explicitly made in the document that prevails, particularly in the governance model document. * Creation of an EIB. SAP needs to double-check whether we can live with that part. Their concerns largely are around the process for selecting members (both inclusion and exclusion criteria in the current text) and how to balance what the EIB is supposed to do between irrelevancy on one side and anti-trust regulations at the other end of the spectrum. IBM prefers to continue the discussion on this point prior to deciding. Thales' position is also not final. Some partners like NSN didn't object but asked for a clarification regarding the 2 Million rule. Rest of partners seem to agree with the inclusion of this body with a role as described in the latest governance model drafts. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: 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 26/02/13 11:50, David Kennedy wrote: Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From werner.mohr at nsn.com Wed Feb 27 10:27:15 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:27:15 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> References: <512D58F6.6020101@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, thank you for this version. I commented the former version with my mail on February 20 (cf. attachment) and both comments seem not be communicated to these people, who are working on the document. The criterion for EIB members is rather strict with in minimum 20 million investment. I asked several times to check, how many organizations do have such an investment, which may result in a very small EIB. In addition, the period is not clear to spent these 2 million. There is a mismatch in the composition of the architecture board between this governance text and the Collaboration Agreement. In order to avoid misunderstandings and discussions there should be no such mismatch. Please forward these comments to David Kennedy. Best regards, Werner Dr. Werner Mohr Head of Research Alliances Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH CEF T&S IE Research Alliances St. Martin Strasse 76 81541 Munich Germany Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Juanjo Hierro Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:53 AM To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: 'Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com' (Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com) , 'anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com' (anne.de_moor at alcatel-lucent.com) , Hohmann, Bj?rn (Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, Attached is version 4 of the document. The comments received in the last few days are included as far as possible. The changes are deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid creating new conflicts and to resolve key points as simply as possible. The track changes is activated so you can follow the additions. The standing working groups are not altered as the opinions are conflicting so we will cover this in the SB meetings. The FITMAN suggestion that we use declared roles (DM, BM) to run whatever groups are formed can also be discussed. I have changed the contentious word "ensure" to "oversee" which is defined as: 1. To watch over and direct; supervise. 2. To subject to scrutiny; examine or inspect I think this is the least the coordinators themselves expect to do so we should be able to work with this. We are running out of time so please react immediately if there still are any points of concern. Thanks for your support, David David Kennedy Director Eurescom GmbH Wieblinger Weg 19/4 D-69123 Heidelberg Germany Phone: +49 6221 989 122 Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. Gesch?ftsf?hrer (Director) David M. Kennedy. Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins. Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. VAT Nr. DE 143457825 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)" Subject: RE: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:18:24 +0000 Size: 36270 URL: