[Fiware-pcc] Minutes and very final URGENT checks prior sending email to the EC (specially for SAP, THALES and IBM)

[Juanjo Hierro]

  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> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro
Envoyé : mercredi 27 février 2013 12:38
À : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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<http://www.tid.es>

email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro



FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect



You can follow FI-WARE at:

  website:  http://www.fi-ware.eu

  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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130227/c8ae9db1/attachment.html>