[Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4

[Juanjo Hierro]

  FYI,

-- Juanjo


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:47:30 +0100
From:   Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To:     David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>, Fatelnig Peter <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu"<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>
CC:     Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu> <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Lakaniemi Ilkka <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi><mailto:ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>, jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>


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<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) 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.
Geschäftsführer (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 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/20130227/34a57943/attachment.html>