From jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 5 08:21:47 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:21:47 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51359D0B.3070608@tid.es> Hi all, Please find attached the email that was sent yesterday by David Kennedy announcing development of a new version of the DoW. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 5 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:08:54 +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' , Schweppe, Kathrin (kathrin.schweppe at sap.com) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Hi all, We are out of time on the governance model work but there are still a few comments and misunderstandings to clarify. I will draft a version 5 now to try and resolve these remaining comments and hope the commission will be patient with us. The main changes I expect are: ? Sort out any confusion over SB and AB activities that are described in both DoW text and CA so it is clear what applies and where. What is currently in the governance are highlights of the CA bullet points for these bodies. As the CA is just as valid as it was in phase 1, it does not seem critical that we copy all the CA text in here. I will check with legal experts on this. ? To put some wording in the governance model stating that the EIB is required by the EC and that it does not constitute a breach of anti-trust law. To avoid conflict with the CA we may consider the EIB as an external body organised by the EC with whom we decide to liaise and offer some administration support. ? To clear up any possible misunderstanding about shared funding of common marketing and dissemination activity costs. ? To clarify the mediation scenarios are inter-projects only and an AB or SB level mediator should be selected where there is no conflict of interest. (e.g. if the chairmans' project is one of the ones in conflict) What will not be changed is the use of the word "decision" with regard to the SB and AB actions. The CA has text relating to decisions and also text on how such decisions with impact on resources should be handled, so we do not need to avoid using the term. If there is anything else critical please send it to me now as, in fairness to the projects who want to get on with the work, we need to finish this discussion. 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 jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 5 09:53:44 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:53:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5135B298.6040600@tid.es> Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed the response to the comments we sent to the EC last Wednesday regarding comments agreed on the Governance Document. I assume that revision 5 I have just distributed to you is aligned with the response we get here. A significant point is the response given regarding prevalence of the DoW upon any short of Agreements. I would suggest that you pay special attention to that. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:39:19 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , "Fatelnig Peter" , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Lakaniemi Ilkka , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? HI Juanjo, Please see comments below with respect to changes implemented in Version 5. David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 27 February 2013 16:48 To: David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Cc: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 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. There is no logic to the concern that the Collaboration Agreement is compromised by some highlights being in the DoW. It still applies as the agreement between participants. However, as you suggested. I have proposed to include the listed responsibilities as an annex to minimise confusion. * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. * 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 OK ? added. * 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. OK - added * 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 M?) 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. The 5-10% is a maximum figure ? we had examples in the working document of actual figures that were more in the range of 3% but in any case you haggle this with your project officer. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. * 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. Text included as proposed by Thales to clarify the status and antitrust nature of the EIB. 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 ________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 5 10:25:13 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:25:13 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document In-Reply-To: <5135B298.6040600@tid.es> References: <5135B298.6040600@tid.es> Message-ID: <20631_1362475518_5135B9FE_20631_54_3_f1219fd5-15b9-4490-8bc2-718e06b661af@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Thanks Juanjo for this email and update. In the meantime let me inform you that from my side I haven?t received the revision 5 you refer to in your email below. Maybe it got stuck somewhere so could you please check and let it arrive to me/us for our information and check 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? : mardi 5 mars 2013 09:54 ? : fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed the response to the comments we sent to the EC last Wednesday regarding comments agreed on the Governance Document. I assume that revision 5 I have just distributed to you is aligned with the response we get here. A significant point is the response given regarding prevalence of the DoW upon any short of Agreements. I would suggest that you pay special attention to that. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:39:19 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , "Fatelnig Peter" , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Lakaniemi Ilkka , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? HI Juanjo, Please see comments below with respect to changes implemented in Version 5. David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 27 February 2013 16:48 To: David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Cc: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 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. There is no logic to the concern that the Collaboration Agreement is compromised by some highlights being in the DoW. It still applies as the agreement between participants. However, as you suggested. I have proposed to include the listed responsibilities as an annex to minimise confusion. * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. * 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 OK ? added. * 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. OK - added * 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 M?) 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. The 5-10% is a maximum figure ? we had examples in the working document of actual figures that were more in the range of 3% but in any case you haggle this with your project officer. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. * 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. Text included as proposed by Thales to clarify the status and antitrust nature of the EIB. 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 ________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 5 10:30:39 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:30:39 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document In-Reply-To: <20631_1362475518_5135B9FE_20631_54_3_f1219fd5-15b9-4490-8bc2-718e06b661af@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> References: <5135B298.6040600@tid.es> <20631_1362475518_5135B9FE_20631_54_3_f1219fd5-15b9-4490-8bc2-718e06b661af@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: <8513_1362475841_5135BB41_8513_48_5_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0A65F1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all, For some of you who did not receive the V5, here it is. BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de BISSON Pascal Envoy? : mardi 5 mars 2013 10:25 ? : Juanjo Hierro; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : BEDOUI Patricia; SIEUX Corinne; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Thanks Juanjo for this email and update. In the meantime let me inform you that from my side I haven?t received the revision 5 you refer to in your email below. Maybe it got stuck somewhere so could you please check and let it arrive to me/us for our information and check 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? : mardi 5 mars 2013 09:54 ? : fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed the response to the comments we sent to the EC last Wednesday regarding comments agreed on the Governance Document. I assume that revision 5 I have just distributed to you is aligned with the response we get here. A significant point is the response given regarding prevalence of the DoW upon any short of Agreements. I would suggest that you pay special attention to that. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:39:19 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , "Fatelnig Peter" , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Lakaniemi Ilkka , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? HI Juanjo, Please see comments below with respect to changes implemented in Version 5. David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 27 February 2013 16:48 To: David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Cc: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 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. There is no logic to the concern that the Collaboration Agreement is compromised by some highlights being in the DoW. It still applies as the agreement between participants. However, as you suggested. I have proposed to include the listed responsibilities as an annex to minimise confusion. * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. * 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 OK ? added. * 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. OK - added * 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 M?) 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. The 5-10% is a maximum figure ? we had examples in the working document of actual figures that were more in the range of 3% but in any case you haggle this with your project officer. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. * 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. Text included as proposed by Thales to clarify the status and antitrust nature of the EIB. 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 ________________________________ 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: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-5_040313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 285765 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-5_040313.docx URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 5 11:03:32 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:03:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Attached FI-PPP Revision 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5135C2F4.8040405@tid.es> Dear all, Please find revision 5 of the governance document. Apparently, it had been circulated without permission (see body of attached mail). Please discard any message you may have received by other means. Please send any comments you may have to fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu with cc to Luis Garc?a and myself so that they can be quickly taken into consideration by us, as coordinators, and during discussions at PCC level. The sooner, the better. This is a very consolidated version, so further comments should be minor (at least in terms of number of them) Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Attached FI-PPP Revision 5 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:18:58 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: David Kennedy , "'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' , Schweppe, Kathrin (kathrin.schweppe at sap.com) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu HI All, Please find attached version 5 as promised. I apologise if you have heard this is already in circulation. This was not intended. As I had received a particularly hostile e-mail from the SAP Lawyer I had asked her for a quick response to a pre-release version of Version 5 yesterday, but she chose to circulate it without my permission to some other lawyers. This version is for your consideration and, as we all are aware, our time for this has expired. I have made the updates as described below and otherwise kept it simple. Please respond as soon as possible as I am no longer sure how much more time the commission can give us. We must respect that some projects want to start now and all of us should have finished negotiation by now. Thanks again for your support. David From: David Kennedy [mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu] Sent: 04 March 2013 12:09 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'; Schweppe, Kathrin (kathrin.schweppe at sap.com); Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 5 Importance: High Hi all, We are out of time on the governance model work but there are still a few comments and misunderstandings to clarify. I will draft a version 5 now to try and resolve these remaining comments and hope the commission will be patient with us. The main changes I expect are: ? Sort out any confusion over SB and AB activities that are described in both DoW text and CA so it is clear what applies and where. What is currently in the governance are highlights of the CA bullet points for these bodies. As the CA is just as valid as it was in phase 1, it does not seem critical that we copy all the CA text in here. I will check with legal experts on this. ? To put some wording in the governance model stating that the EIB is required by the EC and that it does not constitute a breach of anti-trust law. To avoid conflict with the CA we may consider the EIB as an external body organised by the EC with whom we decide to liaise and offer some administration support. ? To clear up any possible misunderstanding about shared funding of common marketing and dissemination activity costs. ? To clarify the mediation scenarios are inter-projects only and an AB or SB level mediator should be selected where there is no conflict of interest. (e.g. if the chairmans? project is one of the ones in conflict) What will not be changed is the use of the word ?decision? with regard to the SB and AB actions. The CA has text relating to decisions and also text on how such decisions with impact on resources should be handled, so we do not need to avoid using the term. If there is anything else critical please send it to me now as, in fairness to the projects who want to get on with the work, we need to finish this discussion. 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-5_040313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 290262 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 5 11:11:02 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:11:02 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: <512E2A92.6020602@tid.es> Message-ID: <5135C4B6.9060808@tid.es> Dear David and Peter, I appreciate David's response to our comments but, regarding the point below, I would like to stress that it should be the European Commission who makes a formal statement on the matter. Therefore, until we receive an email from the European Commission on the matter, we understand this issue is not closed. We would like to emphasize that whatever that statement about prevalence is, it should be also included in the DoW and become part of the governance model document. With a clear statement by the European Commission, it will then be more clear what the options are and partners can take an informed decision about next steps in the process. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. ________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 5 18:03:10 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:03:10 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Comments on Revision 5 of the FI-WARE Governance Document In-Reply-To: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C5573DBB0@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C5573DBB0@PALLENE.office.hd> Message-ID: <21233_1362502991_5136254F_21233_734_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0A6D0F@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all, Just a small comment: I doubt that the following sentence is useful and desirable. External evaluators should decide if we breach anti-trust-law and putting this sentence is clearly a red flag for external readers. In addition, the DoW is not a legal document so this legal statement has no place is the DoW. "The FI-PPP Steering Board (SB) agrees to liaise with the EIB on the basis that its construction and operation does not constitute a breach of anti-trust law". 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 De : fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ernoe Kovacs Envoy? : mardi 5 mars 2013 17:58 ? : Juanjo Hierro; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Objet : [Fiware-ga] Comments on Revision 5 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Hello, please find attached comments on the Rev: 5 of the document. Basically it - asks for clarification on certain topics - agrees with comments done by SAP and IBM that further discussion on the EIB is needed Kind regards Ern? From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 09:54 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Subject: [Fiware-ga] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed the response to the comments we sent to the EC last Wednesday regarding comments agreed on the Governance Document. I assume that revision 5 I have just distributed to you is aligned with the response we get here. A significant point is the response given regarding prevalence of the DoW upon any short of Agreements. I would suggest that you pay special attention to that. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:39:19 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , "Fatelnig Peter" , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Lakaniemi Ilkka , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? HI Juanjo, Please see comments below with respect to changes implemented in Version 5. David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 27 February 2013 16:48 To: David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Cc: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 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. There is no logic to the concern that the Collaboration Agreement is compromised by some highlights being in the DoW. It still applies as the agreement between participants. However, as you suggested. I have proposed to include the listed responsibilities as an annex to minimise confusion. * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. * 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 OK ? added. * 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. OK - added * 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 M?) 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. The 5-10% is a maximum figure ? we had examples in the working document of actual figures that were more in the range of 3% but in any case you haggle this with your project officer. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. * 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. Text included as proposed by Thales to clarify the status and antitrust nature of the EIB. 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 ________________________________ 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 jhierro at tid.es Wed Mar 6 07:31:53 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:31:53 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50620BCC6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50620BCC6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <5136E2D9.9040109@tid.es> Dear partners, The answer provided by the Commission below, should solve the issue regarding prevalence among documents (DoW - Anex I, Collaboration Agreement and Consortium Agreement). If you believe it doesn't, please formulate a question that we can forward to the Commission or just send a message directly to the Commission formulating your question, forwarding contents of this email as attachment, and copying the fiware-pcc, the fiware-ga and me. I hope this helps us to make progress. We will recommend that next versions of the governance model contain a statement which makes this prevalence clear. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:18:18 +0000 From: To: , , CC: , , , , , Dear colleagues, The Commission is party only to the grant agreement, and no other contract relating to the establishment of the mechanisms supporting the FI-PPP. ? Article 10 of the grant agreement (Application of the grant agreement provisions) reads as follows: Any provision of this part of the grant agreement, shall take precedence over the provisions of any of the Annexes. The provisions of Annex III shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex II, and both shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex I. The special clauses set out in Article 7 shall take precedence over any other provisions of this grant agreement. ? The grant agreement and its annexes take precedence over any agreements partners might conclude among themselves, according to article II.3(i) ? otherwise the beneficiary is in breach of contract with the Commission. ? Special clause 41, article 5(b) is satisfied by the inclusion of the relevant programme mechanism in the respective annex 1 to the grant agreement. By application of the last sentence of article 10 of the grant agreement and article II.3(i), the programme mechanism in annex 1 shall take precedence over any other provisions in case of conflict. I hope this clarifies, Best, Peter From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:11 AM To: David Kennedy; FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT); Lakaniemi Ilkka; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Dear David and Peter, I appreciate David's response to our comments but, regarding the point below, I would like to stress that it should be the European Commission who makes a formal statement on the matter. Therefore, until we receive an email from the European Commission on the matter, we understand this issue is not closed. We would like to emphasize that whatever that statement about prevalence is, it should be also included in the DoW and become part of the governance model document. With a clear statement by the European Commission, it will then be more clear what the options are and partners can take an informed decision about next steps in the process. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: ? 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. ________________________________ 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 Mar 6 07:50:00 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:50:00 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50620BCC6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <512E2A92.6020602@tid.es> <5135C4B6.9060808@tid.es> <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50620BCC6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <5136E718.9040809@tid.es> Dear Peter, Thank you very much for your response. I hope you understand that we needed something like this from the Commission and not other intermediary, to make things a little bit more clear to some partners and stop a never-ending discussion :-) I hope that this will definitively close this issue and allow to focus on making progress on the rest of the document. I would strongly recommend that a short paragraph is included at the beginning of the Governance Model document making it clear what the precedence among documents is. It might be argued that is not needed because the clauses you refer in your response are part of the Gran Agreement but I would say it is not a bad idea to add it for the avoidance of doubts. Something in line with your second point below. Just as a suggestion, something like the following: For the avoidance of doubt, the grants agreements and their annexes signed by partners of the FI-PPP, concretely the DoW - annex I, take precedence over the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement and any agreements partners might conclude among themselves 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) 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 05/03/13 23:18, Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear colleagues, The Commission is party only to the grant agreement, and no other contract relating to the establishment of the mechanisms supporting the FI-PPP. ? Article 10 of the grant agreement (Application of the grant agreement provisions) reads as follows: Any provision of this part of the grant agreement, shall take precedence over the provisions of any of the Annexes. The provisions of Annex III shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex II, and both shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex I. The special clauses set out in Article 7 shall take precedence over any other provisions of this grant agreement. ? The grant agreement and its annexes take precedence over any agreements partners might conclude among themselves, according to article II.3(i) ? otherwise the beneficiary is in breach of contract with the Commission. ? Special clause 41, article 5(b) is satisfied by the inclusion of the relevant programme mechanism in the respective annex 1 to the grant agreement. By application of the last sentence of article 10 of the grant agreement and article II.3(i), the programme mechanism in annex 1 shall take precedence over any other provisions in case of conflict. I hope this clarifies, Best, Peter From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:11 AM To: David Kennedy; FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT); Lakaniemi Ilkka; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Dear David and Peter, I appreciate David's response to our comments but, regarding the point below, I would like to stress that it should be the European Commission who makes a formal statement on the matter. Therefore, until we receive an email from the European Commission on the matter, we understand this issue is not closed. We would like to emphasize that whatever that statement about prevalence is, it should be also included in the DoW and become part of the governance model document. With a clear statement by the European Commission, it will then be more clear what the options are and partners can take an informed decision about next steps in the process. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: ? 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. ________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 7 12:20:52 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:20:52 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> References: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> Message-ID: <51387814.7010203@tid.es> Hi all, Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally. However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments. Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same. I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Tue Mar 5 17:58:00 2013 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:58:00 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments on Revision 5 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C5573DBB0@PALLENE.office.hd> Hello, please find attached comments on the Rev: 5 of the document. Basically it - asks for clarification on certain topics - agrees with comments done by SAP and IBM that further discussion on the EIB is needed Kind regards Ern? From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 09:54 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Subject: [Fiware-ga] Response to our comments on Revision 4 of the FI-WARE Governance Document Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed the response to the comments we sent to the EC last Wednesday regarding comments agreed on the Governance Document. I assume that revision 5 I have just distributed to you is aligned with the response we get here. A significant point is the response given regarding prevalence of the DoW upon any short of Agreements. I would suggest that you pay special attention to that. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:39:19 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , "Fatelnig Peter" , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" CC: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Lakaniemi Ilkka , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? HI Juanjo, Please see comments below with respect to changes implemented in Version 5. David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 27 February 2013 16:48 To: David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Cc: Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 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. There is no logic to the concern that the Collaboration Agreement is compromised by some highlights being in the DoW. It still applies as the agreement between participants. However, as you suggested. I have proposed to include the listed responsibilities as an annex to minimise confusion. * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. * 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 OK ? added. * 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. OK - added * 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 M?) 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. The 5-10% is a maximum figure ? we had examples in the working document of actual figures that were more in the range of 3% but in any case you haggle this with your project officer. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. * 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. Text included as proposed by Thales to clarify the status and antitrust nature of the EIB. 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 ________________________________ 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-5_040313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 288176 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-5_040313.docx URL: From p.amon at siemens.com Tue Mar 5 12:16:57 2013 From: p.amon at siemens.com (Amon, Peter) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:16:57 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Attached FI-PPP Revision 5 In-Reply-To: <5135C2F4.8040405@tid.es> References: <5135C2F4.8040405@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, a comment by Siemens on has not been addressed, i.e., there was neither a respective change in the document nor did I see a response to the comment. I attach the email with the comment. Kind regards Peter From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 11:04 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Attached FI-PPP Revision 5 Dear all, Please find revision 5 of the governance document. Apparently, it had been circulated without permission (see body of attached mail). Please discard any message you may have received by other means. Please send any comments you may have to fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu with cc to Luis Garc?a and myself so that they can be quickly taken into consideration by us, as coordinators, and during discussions at PCC level. The sooner, the better. This is a very consolidated version, so further comments should be minor (at least in terms of number of them) Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Attached FI-PPP Revision 5 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:18:58 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: David Kennedy , "'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' , Schweppe, Kathrin (kathrin.schweppe at sap.com) , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu HI All, Please find attached version 5 as promised. I apologise if you have heard this is already in circulation. This was not intended. As I had received a particularly hostile e-mail from the SAP Lawyer I had asked her for a quick response to a pre-release version of Version 5 yesterday, but she chose to circulate it without my permission to some other lawyers. This version is for your consideration and, as we all are aware, our time for this has expired. I have made the updates as described below and otherwise kept it simple. Please respond as soon as possible as I am no longer sure how much more time the commission can give us. We must respect that some projects want to start now and all of us should have finished negotiation by now. Thanks again for your support. David From: David Kennedy [mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu] Sent: 04 March 2013 12:09 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'; Schweppe, Kathrin (kathrin.schweppe at sap.com); Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 5 Importance: High Hi all, We are out of time on the governance model work but there are still a few comments and misunderstandings to clarify. I will draft a version 5 now to try and resolve these remaining comments and hope the commission will be patient with us. The main changes I expect are: * Sort out any confusion over SB and AB activities that are described in both DoW text and CA so it is clear what applies and where. What is currently in the governance are highlights of the CA bullet points for these bodies. As the CA is just as valid as it was in phase 1, it does not seem critical that we copy all the CA text in here. I will check with legal experts on this. * To put some wording in the governance model stating that the EIB is required by the EC and that it does not constitute a breach of anti-trust law. To avoid conflict with the CA we may consider the EIB as an external body organised by the EC with whom we decide to liaise and offer some administration support. * To clear up any possible misunderstanding about shared funding of common marketing and dissemination activity costs. * To clarify the mediation scenarios are inter-projects only and an AB or SB level mediator should be selected where there is no conflict of interest. (e.g. if the chairmans' project is one of the ones in conflict) What will not be changed is the use of the word "decision" with regard to the SB and AB actions. The CA has text relating to decisions and also text on how such decisions with impact on resources should be handled, so we do not need to avoid using the term. If there is anything else critical please send it to me now as, in fairness to the projects who want to get on with the work, we need to finish this discussion. 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: "Glueck-Otte, Irene" Subject: AW: Updated goverence structure document - FI PPP Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:56:53 +0100 Size: 496119 URL: From lgg at tid.es Tue Mar 5 17:10:25 2013 From: lgg at tid.es (LUIS GARCIA GARCIA) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:10:25 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: References: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9C9BC@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9CE00@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <509EDF46338A8C41A9CECDD4CCF7D2071B295DF5@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> -----Mensaje original----- De: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de [mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de] Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 17:09 Para: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com CC: kennedy at eurescom.eu; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Asunto: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Dear Kathrin, from my understanding, I would not see two advisory boards as "counterparts". Such a body should always aim to optimize the projects or the program as a whole by making recommendations, evaluations etc. Or to ask the other way around: Why do we need two boards, then ? Should it not be sufficient to have the Advisory Board with a 'balanced' composition from industry, universities etc. ? Best regards Fabian Perpeet > -----Original Message----- > From: Schweppe, Kathrin [mailto:kathrin.schweppe at sap.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:57 PM > To: Perpeet, Fabian; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; > GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Stollberg, Michael; > rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; Rupp, Elke; > Dietrich, Armin; Manderfeld, Claudia; Sch?tz, Laura > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > Dear Fabian, > > thank you for your answer. I assume that in the Advisory Board the > research organizations and other academic partners are represented > sufficiently. Would you say, this is not a counterpart to the EIB? > > BR, > Kathrin > > Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. > Legal Counsel > Global Legal > SAP AG > Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 > 69190 Walldorf, Germany > T +49 6227 7-64369 > F +49 6227 78-54177 > E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > http://www.sap.com > 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. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de > [mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de] > Sent: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 14:50 > To: Schweppe, Kathrin; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; > GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Stollberg, Michael; > rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; > elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; > claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > Dear all, > sorry, but I had only time for a quick check of the draft. From the > viewpoint of a research organization it seems unbalanced that there > will be a EIB as a newly installed body only representing the > industrial partners. We would prefer/request that this body shall > represent all partners involved in the separate projects so that the universities, research organisations etc should be considered, too. > > According to Section 4.1, the DoW shall dedicate resources to the > program level activities. Am I right to presume that this does affect > only future projects and does not request changes to the DoW's of existing projects ? > > Regarding 4.2/4.3 and the representation of the project partners in > the SB as well as the Coordinator's role: Please note that such a > representation shall not include the right to make legally binding declarations for a partner. > > Best regards > Fabian Perpeet > Fraunhofer Gesellschaft e. V. > Legal Affairs and Contracts > phone: +49 2241 - 142314 > fax: +49 2241 ? 142170 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Schweppe, Kathrin [mailto:kathrin.schweppe at sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:09 PM > > To: Schweppe, Kathrin; Suzanne Erez; Barbara Gromer; > > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; Perpeet, > > Fabian; Galit Leider; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; > > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > > Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen" _essi.heinanen at tivit.fi; > > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA (lgg at tid.es) > > Cc: David Kennedy (kennedy at eurescom.eu); Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; > > Stollberg, Michael; Rod Franklin; Wolfert, Sjaak > > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > Dear all, > > > > I forgot the attachement, I apologize, however, here are the email > > and the document. > > > > BR, > > Kathrin > > > > Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. > > Legal Counsel > > Global Legal > > SAP AG > > Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 > > 69190 Walldorf, Germany > > T +49 6227 7-64369 > > F +49 6227 78-54177 > > E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > http://www.sap.com > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > Sent: Montag, 4. M?rz 2013 18:05 > > To: Suzanne Erez; Barbara Gromer; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; > > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; Galit > > Leider; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; > > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > > Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen" _essi.heinanen at tivit.fi; > > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA (lgg at tid.es) > > Cc: David Kennedy (kennedy at eurescom.eu); Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; > > Stollberg, Michael; Rod Franklin; Wolfert, Sjaak > > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > Importance: High > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached the new Rev. 5 of the Governance Structure. It > > was send out today, so I do apologize to forward it to you only today. > > I would very kindly ask you all, to check the document. As it should > > be part of the DOW of each phase II projects as well as Fi-Ware and > > Concord, please send me your comments > > > > until Thursday 18:00 o'clock p.M. CET. > > > > I do apologize for such pressure and such short term notice, > > however, I would kindly ask you for your support in order to have a > > DOW and the Collaboration Agreement aligned in order to avoid > > confusion and wrt. to some concerns of some partners, to have a > > version, in which no one fears > any issues with criminal law or anti-trust law. > > > > I appreciate all your comments and your collaboration upon this > > regard. I do apologize once again for the short term notice and the > > pressure I put > on you. > > > > Best regards, > > Kathrin > > > > Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. > > Legal Counsel > > Global Legal > > SAP AG > > Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 > > 69190 Walldorf, Germany > > T +49 6227 7-64369 > > F +49 6227 78-54177 > > E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > http://www.sap.com > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard > > Sent: Montag, 4. Februar 2013 11:27 > > To: Suzanne Erez; Barbara Gromer > > Cc: beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; > > fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; Galit Leider; > > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > > Schweppe, Kathrin; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; Stollberg, Michael; > > robert.sarrazin at orange- > ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen" > > _essi.heinanen at tivit.fi > > Subject: RE: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > FYI. SAP's comments, since they didn't make it into the FI-Ware > > coordinators mail to EC on time. > > > > > > 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 > > | F +49 6227 > > 78-29754 | 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. > > > > > > ________________________________ 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 lgg at tid.es Tue Mar 5 17:15:55 2013 From: lgg at tid.es (LUIS GARCIA GARCIA) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:15:55 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9CE58@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> References: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9C9BC@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9CE00@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9CE58@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <509EDF46338A8C41A9CECDD4CCF7D2071B295E5F@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> -----Mensaje original----- De: Schweppe, Kathrin [mailto:kathrin.schweppe at sap.com] Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 17:14 Para: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de CC: kennedy at eurescom.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Stollberg, Michael; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Asunto: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Dear Fabian, the current plans are indeed to establish two boards instead of having one balanced board because the current balance of the current composition of the current Advisory board is more on the academia side than the industry side and the EC does not want to change the composition of the current Advisory board now. David, please correct me, if I have understood that wrong. BR, Kathrin -----Original Message----- From: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de [mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de] Sent: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 17:09 To: Schweppe, Kathrin Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Stollberg, Michael; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Dear Kathrin, from my understanding, I would not see two advisory boards as "counterparts". Such a body should always aim to optimize the projects or the program as a whole by making recommendations, evaluations etc. Or to ask the other way around: Why do we need two boards, then ? Should it not be sufficient to have the Advisory Board with a 'balanced' composition from industry, universities etc. ? Best regards Fabian Perpeet > -----Original Message----- > From: Schweppe, Kathrin [mailto:kathrin.schweppe at sap.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:57 PM > To: Perpeet, Fabian; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Stollberg, Michael; > rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; Rupp, Elke; Dietrich, > Armin; Manderfeld, Claudia; Sch?tz, Laura > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > Dear Fabian, > > thank you for your answer. I assume that in the Advisory Board the research > organizations and other academic partners are represented sufficiently. Would you > say, this is not a counterpart to the EIB? > > BR, > Kathrin > > Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. > Legal Counsel > Global Legal > SAP AG > Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 > 69190 Walldorf, Germany > T +49 6227 7-64369 > F +49 6227 78-54177 > E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > http://www.sap.com > 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. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de [mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de] > Sent: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 14:50 > To: Schweppe, Kathrin; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > tara.macmahon at intel.com; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Stollberg, Michael; > rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; > elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; > claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > Dear all, > sorry, but I had only time for a quick check of the draft. From the viewpoint of a > research organization it seems unbalanced that there will be a EIB as a newly > installed body only representing the industrial partners. We would prefer/request that > this body shall represent all partners involved in the separate projects so that the > universities, research organisations etc should be considered, too. > > According to Section 4.1, the DoW shall dedicate resources to the program level > activities. Am I right to presume that this does affect only future projects and does > not request changes to the DoW's of existing projects ? > > Regarding 4.2/4.3 and the representation of the project partners in the SB as well as > the Coordinator's role: Please note that such a representation shall not include the > right to make legally binding declarations for a partner. > > Best regards > Fabian Perpeet > Fraunhofer Gesellschaft e. V. > Legal Affairs and Contracts > phone: +49 2241 - 142314 > fax: +49 2241 ? 142170 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Schweppe, Kathrin [mailto:kathrin.schweppe at sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:09 PM > > To: Schweppe, Kathrin; Suzanne Erez; Barbara Gromer; > > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; Perpeet, > > Fabian; Galit Leider; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; > > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > > Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen" _essi.heinanen at tivit.fi; > > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA (lgg at tid.es) > > Cc: David Kennedy (kennedy at eurescom.eu); Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; > > Stollberg, Michael; Rod Franklin; Wolfert, Sjaak > > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > Dear all, > > > > I forgot the attachement, I apologize, however, here are the email and > > the document. > > > > BR, > > Kathrin > > > > Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. > > Legal Counsel > > Global Legal > > SAP AG > > Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 > > 69190 Walldorf, Germany > > T +49 6227 7-64369 > > F +49 6227 78-54177 > > E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > http://www.sap.com > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > Sent: Montag, 4. M?rz 2013 18:05 > > To: Suzanne Erez; Barbara Gromer; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; > > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; Galit > > Leider; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; > > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; > > Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen" _essi.heinanen at tivit.fi; > > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA (lgg at tid.es) > > Cc: David Kennedy (kennedy at eurescom.eu); Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; > > Stollberg, Michael; Rod Franklin; Wolfert, Sjaak > > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > Importance: High > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached the new Rev. 5 of the Governance Structure. It > > was send out today, so I do apologize to forward it to you only today. > > I would very kindly ask you all, to check the document. As it should > > be part of the DOW of each phase II projects as well as Fi-Ware and > > Concord, please send me your comments > > > > until Thursday 18:00 o'clock > > p.M. CET. > > > > I do apologize for such pressure and such short term notice, however, > > I would kindly ask you for your support in order to have a DOW and > > the Collaboration Agreement aligned in order to avoid confusion and > > wrt. to some concerns of some partners, to have a version, in which no one fears > any issues with criminal law or anti-trust law. > > > > I appreciate all your comments and your collaboration upon this > > regard. I do apologize once again for the short term notice and the pressure I put > on you. > > > > Best regards, > > Kathrin > > > > Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. > > Legal Counsel > > Global Legal > > SAP AG > > Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 > > 69190 Walldorf, Germany > > T +49 6227 7-64369 > > F +49 6227 78-54177 > > E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > http://www.sap.com > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard > > Sent: Montag, 4. Februar 2013 11:27 > > To: Suzanne Erez; Barbara Gromer > > Cc: beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; > > fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; Galit Leider; > > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > > Schweppe, Kathrin; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; > > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; Stollberg, Michael; robert.sarrazin at orange- > ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen" > > _essi.heinanen at tivit.fi > > Subject: RE: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > FYI. SAP's comments, since they didn't make it into the FI-Ware > > coordinators mail to EC on time. > > > > > > 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 | > > F +49 6227 > > 78-29754 | 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. > > > > > > ________________________________ 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 Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu Tue Mar 5 23:18:18 2013 From: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu (Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:18:18 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <5135C4B6.9060808@tid.es> References: <512E2A92.6020602@tid.es> <5135C4B6.9060808@tid.es> Message-ID: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50620BCC6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear colleagues, The Commission is party only to the grant agreement, and no other contract relating to the establishment of the mechanisms supporting the FI-PPP. ? Article 10 of the grant agreement (Application of the grant agreement provisions) reads as follows: Any provision of this part of the grant agreement, shall take precedence over the provisions of any of the Annexes. The provisions of Annex III shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex II, and both shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex I. The special clauses set out in Article 7 shall take precedence over any other provisions of this grant agreement. ? The grant agreement and its annexes take precedence over any agreements partners might conclude among themselves, according to article II.3(i) ? otherwise the beneficiary is in breach of contract with the Commission. ? Special clause 41, article 5(b) is satisfied by the inclusion of the relevant programme mechanism in the respective annex 1 to the grant agreement. By application of the last sentence of article 10 of the grant agreement and article II.3(i), the programme mechanism in annex 1 shall take precedence over any other provisions in case of conflict. I hope this clarifies, Best, Peter From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:11 AM To: David Kennedy; FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT); Lakaniemi Ilkka; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Dear David and Peter, I appreciate David's response to our comments but, regarding the point below, I would like to stress that it should be the European Commission who makes a formal statement on the matter. Therefore, until we receive an email from the European Commission on the matter, we understand this issue is not closed. We would like to emphasize that whatever that statement about prevalence is, it should be also included in the DoW and become part of the governance model document. With a clear statement by the European Commission, it will then be more clear what the options are and partners can take an informed decision about next steps in the process. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: ? 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. There does not need to be agreement here ? the DoW is part of the contract with the commission to do the work. This is the primary contract as no other contract describes the work to be done. The Collaboration agreement is an agreement between parties across a set of projects covering their interworking principles ? many of its principles are to ensure it cannot overrule the DoW contract. The consortium agreement is between the partners in an individual project. I presume it references both the DoW and the CA as these are the frameworks in which the project must work. ________________________________ 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 kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Thu Mar 7 13:31:07 2013 From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com (Schweppe, Kathrin) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:31:07 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> <51387814.7010203@tid.es> Message-ID: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9D517@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Dear Juanjo, you can send those comments as Telefonica's Comments to the EC, however, we disagree, if you send those comments as FI-Ware comments. BR, Kathrin Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. Legal Counsel Global Legal SAP AG Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 69190 Walldorf, Germany T +49 6227 7-64369 F +49 6227 78-54177 E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com http://www.sap.com 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. From: Fasse, Axel Sent: Donnerstag, 7. M?rz 2013 12:45 To: Schweppe, Kathrin Subject: FW: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 * PGP Signed: 07.03.2013 at 12:45:13, Decrypted 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, 7. M?rz 2013 12:21 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Hi all, Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally. However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments. Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same. I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO - this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don't need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 * D055237 > * 0x23174579:0x48FFD1EC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Thu Mar 7 13:51:10 2013 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:51:10 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <51387814.7010203@tid.es> References: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> <51387814.7010203@tid.es> Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C55740244@PALLENE.office.hd> Juanjo, all, I need to comment on the Standardization issue. It is a recurrent topic that the FI PPP and FI-Ware need to be more active in promoting its result to standards. I agree on that. Now, reality is that standard activities are in many companies regarded as company strategic and controlled by respective organization/policies in the company. So there will always be the problem, that standard activities will only be executed, if in the interest of the company. Even big initiatives like the FI PPP will have problems in changing that. My worry is that "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" might remain a process that FII Level standardization are unclear. Will there be an official FI PPP representative to a standard body? Rather unlikely due to that status of the SDOs. So what else can be done then see that individual participants will contribute, maybe aligned? - Ern? From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Donnerstag, 7. M?rz 2013 12:21 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Hi all, Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally. However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments. Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same. I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO - this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don't need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 7 14:52:03 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:52:03 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <5138933F.80500@tid.es> References: <5138933F.80500@tid.es> Message-ID: <51389B83.4010305@tid.es> Hi all, Here it goes the reaction of David Kennedy to my response to his comments. Telefonica believes that what David proposes is ok and can be accepted as formula to accommodate to the changes we proposed in the first place. As I have told David, the solution he proposes are ok but I wanted to double-check with the rest of the FI-WARE partners before giving a definitive answer. So then you have to answer to the following question ... would you agree that the solutions proposed by David are ok to close the comments we made on this two matters ? If I don't hear of any objection by EOB today, I will presume it is ok to you. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:16:47 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka On 07/03/13 13:23, David Kennedy wrote: Hi Juanjo, ITEM 1: AB responsibilities ? OK we are at cross purposes here. I understood you wanted to change the text were we quote the CA and this I did not want to do as I would be attacked for not quoting it correctly. However, if you mean simply add these clarifications to the AB role - I think we can do this. I propose we add two Bullet points in section 3.3 under operation: ? continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program, evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical divergence, including for example: how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by the UC projects, ? analyse the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be carried out in the Standardization Working Group and we simply don?t insist they are 100% aligned with the CA text in annex 1. That should be fine. ITEM 2: PrC - I think you have found the middle ground here except for the use of recommendation. If I can rearrange it slightly for better readability I would propose to keep the link to the SB agenda so people cannot say they don?t know what the issues they are asked to consider are. (NOTE: what I saw this week as an agenda for the SB needs dramatic improvement ? a clear agenda would help solve a lot of problems here !!!): "PrCs, and other project representatives, should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their respective projects according to their internally defined procedures, involving all project partners prior to the SB meeting, in order to get the necessary mandate to discuss, negotiate and decide about the SB agenda items. That should be fine as well The CA contains enough about handling SB decisions ? particularly when resources are impacted - so this is covered. As you were concerned earlier, this might imply that we are unable to handle new issues on the fly but I think these things will work better in practice when the team is used to working together. I also hope so :-) Would this cover your requirements? In my opinion, yes. But let me share this with the rest of FI-WARE prior to give you a final answer. Nevertheless, sure this is better than what we had before so I would even go implementing the proposed changes to move fast. Cheers, -- Juanjo David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 March 2013 12:13 To: David Kennedy Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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: "" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 ________________________________ 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 Mar 7 14:56:49 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:56:49 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9D517@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> References: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> <51387814.7010203@tid.es> <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9D517@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <51389CA1.7000002@tid.es> Dear Kathrin, I have pointed out that my comments are temporary and that they should not taken as definitive until confirmation by the rest of the FI-WARE partners. Please check my last email. Regarding that last email I have sent, I would kindly ask SAP to please let me know whether there is any objection to the solutions proposed by David and, if so, what is the rationale. Honestly, I believe the solution proposed by David covers the expectations. 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) 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 07/03/13 13:31, Schweppe, Kathrin wrote: Dear Juanjo, you can send those comments as Telefonica's Comments to the EC, however, we disagree, if you send those comments as FI-Ware comments. BR, Kathrin Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. Legal Counsel Global Legal SAP AG Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 69190 Walldorf, Germany T +49 6227 7-64369 F +49 6227 78-54177 E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com http://www.sap.com 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. From: Fasse, Axel Sent: Donnerstag, 7. M?rz 2013 12:45 To: Schweppe, Kathrin Subject: FW: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 * PGP Signed: 07.03.2013 at 12:45:13, Decrypted 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, 7. M?rz 2013 12:21 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Hi all, Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally. However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments. Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same. I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO - this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don't need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 * D055237 > * 0x23174579:0x48FFD1EC ________________________________ 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 Mar 7 19:07:31 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:07:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5138D763.5010006@tid.es> FYI -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:23:33 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Hi All, To avoid multiple parallel paths in this discussion I would really appreciate if you gave you feedback through your projects as I simply don?t know to which projects each of you belongs. To ensure a little more clarify on this discussion I will give a quick outline of the background and status. But then please work through the projects. We are in this discussion as, at the negotiation meeting of the Phase 2 projects of the FI-PPP, the commission presented a text which they want to include in the DoW of the FI-PPP projects. We entered into a discussion with them to try and better align the text with the Collaboration Agreement, while recognising that visible improvements of the FI-PPP management were required. The programme reviews identifying the need for improvement are pubic documents. The commission agreed to have this discussion with us on the basis we supported some improvements. To close a point that comes up often: please understand that the commission will not accept any statements saying the Collaboration Agreement rules over the Frame Agreement as they are not party to the Collaboration Agreement. Having said that, FI-Ware is leading a discussion on having a suitable reference to the Collaboration Agreement in the text and we have included the Collaboration Agreement lists of SB and AB responsibilities in revision 5 to ensure alignment. The commission are willing to acknowledge and respect the existence of the CA. On resources: The new projects in phase 2 are being asked to allocate resources to the programme level working groups in their DoWs ? this is part of their negotiation. On-going FI-PPP projects will implement amendments in due course and the commission expects them to make similar allocations when doing their amendments. Like all amendments, the project participants will negotiate and agree whatever changes are necessary with their project officers and revise their DoW accordingly. We don?t need to repeat in the text that the changes in any project amendment need to be agreed with the project participants as this is how such changes are made. The level of resources for programme activities are to be handled individually with the projects and, in the case of on-going projects, it is expected some resources are already allocated to programme activities so the discussion will simply be if this is sufficient. The statements in the text are upper limits to protect us from the programme level requirements exploding. The roles of specific organisational bodies are highlighted intentionally as the purpose of the whole action is to strengthen the commitment of the projects to the FI-PPP governance structure. The visibility of these roles is key to improving the performance. The changes proposed are because the reviews identified these weaknesses. For example: the programme chair responsibility to ensure the overall management of the program is effective and functioning as required is actually the same responsibility all participants have. Collectively we must make sure the programme is working and, while we may have a figurehead with the nominal responsibility, we all need to be proactive to ensure it works well. The Steering board was particularly identified as weak ? maybe we need to clarify in section 3.2 that it approves the COMMON milestones for the projects (as described in the CA) - but it cannot be passive if the inter-project activities are not progressing. Same for the AB - it has to be seen to be more proactive. Having said this, the collaboration agreement frequently repeats the caveats about how decisions of the SB and AB involving resources are treated by the projects and the Collaboration Agreement is still every bit as valid as it was in phase 1. I accepted this action to progress the text on Governance on the basis that the highlighting of the some of the interworking requirements and improving the effectiveness of parts of the structure are fully in the spirit of the programme and the collaboration agreement. I also understood that visible changes are necessary because of the poor reviews and the poor performance of some of the programme elements in phase 1. The main challenge was to see if we could implement such improvements without needing to amend the CA. I believe we are getting there thanks to the inputs received to date. However, if you believe that the minimal changes in emphasis proposed require a change in the Collaboration Agreement then the Steering board has the responsibility (as described in the CA) to propose the amendment or addendum necessary. Revision 5 of the Governance text elaborates a number of points on how the structures of the FI-PPP, as created in phase 1, can be tuned to be a little more effective in phase 2. It has been a constructive ? if sometimes difficult - discussion to get to revision 5 and hopefully we can end this discussion soon and get on with the work. As requested above, please understand that improvements are necessary and assist your project leaders to get these implemented as efficiently as possible. Thanks for your support on this, 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 From: Macmahon, Tara [mailto:tara.macmahon at intel.com] Sent: 07 March 2013 15:19 To: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Cc: David Kennedy; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Sarrazin Robert; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Hi all Thanks to everyone for keeping us up-to-date on discussions around this. 1. We would not agree with the statement on the last page that ?all of the structures outlined above are in line with the principles and definitions of the current Collaboration Agreement?. We agree with IBM?s comments of 11 February, that a sentence is needed in the document that states: "In the event of any conflict between this text and the Collaboration Agreement provisions, the Collaboration Agreement provisions shall apply." 2. We would not agree that the document could be included in the DOWs of the current live projects. Eg, there are a number of statements requiring existing projects to re-allocate resources/make resources available for programme-level activities. We agree with Fraunhofer?s comments of Tuesday, that additional activities/resourcing requirements cannot be carried out with the existing funding. Instead, we suggest text be included in the document along the lines: ? ?For existing projects, the consortium members will agree, in accordance with the terms of their Consortium Agreement terms how resources can be allocated/re-allocated for the programme-level activities envisaged in this document, it being always recognised that. for existing projects, no consortium partner can be required to make additional resources available without its written agreement, and that any re-allocation of budget or resources from any particular work activity/ consortium partner can only be made with the agreement of that consortium partner, and that partner?s work scope/work activity will need to be varied/reduced accordingly? 3. The document needs to be clearer around what resources need to be made available ? eg: statements that need to be clarified: o ?The projects must allocate resources to the working groups defined in this section in their project contract DOWs? (see Section 3.2 (Steering Board), para 3) o ?The individual projects commit to reserve reasonable funds and allocate staff for each working group within their respective work plans?? (see Section 3.5 (Working Groups), last bullet under ?Operational Aspects?). 4. Some of the bodies seem to be given greater roles. We agree with the changes requested by IBM around these in their comments of 11 February ? eg: o The Programme Chair should not have ?the responsibility to ensure the overall management of the program is effective and functioning as required?(para 3.1) . Sentence to be deleted. o The Steering Board should not ?approve? the overall coordination among the projects. It should only ?supervise and review? (Section 3.2 (Steering Board), para 5). o Architecture Board: See changes requested by IBM at Section 3.3. 5. I can no longer see any potential impact on IP terms, but please let me know if I?m incorrect? Best regards Tara -----Original Message----- From: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de [mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:37 PM To: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; Macmahon, Tara; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Dear Kathrin, just one clarifying remark to my question in my first mail from today: If the Commission intends to modify the DoW by implementing the new governance structure also for running projects it has to be clear that the additional activities due to the new structure require additional funding as the existing projects have been calculated in accordance with the DoW's at the time when the project proposals were submitted. Additional activities cannot be carried out with the original funding. Best regards Fabian Perpeet ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Ireland Limited (Branch) Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland Registered Number: E902934 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ________________________________ 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 stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 8 01:17:52 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:17:52 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] smart city charter Message-ID: dear all, as agreed during our last phc on the matter, please find attached the smart city charter. it contains also a quite stringet time schedule for us and the selected cities. happy to discuss it via email, but also through a dedicated phc to be called by juanjo and hold before next 15th march (I'm available from 13 afternoon onwards). ciao, stefano -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE Smart City Charter_v1.0.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 14086 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 8 02:05:40 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 02:05:40 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: <5138D763.5010006@tid.es> References: <5138D763.5010006@tid.es> Message-ID: dear juanjo, i do not like the tone of david nor his attitude to be the leder of everything: simply he is not! in addition i do not like the statement about the ab to be more proactive, because this is already the case. the fact that the sb is not efficient, does not mean at all the programme is not progressing well (which actually is not the case, or at least only very partially true ....) simply it means the sb, and concord above all, are not performing well. changing this reality is unfair and absolutely missleading! cioa, stefano 2013/3/7 Juanjo Hierro > > FYI > > -- 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) 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 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 RE: Urgent: > New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 > 16:23:33 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: > FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu > , > Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es > , livdo at tid.es , > Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , > Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: > burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , > michael.stollberg at sap.com , > rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , > Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , > elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , > armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , > claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , > laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , > SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , > Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , > GALITL at il.ibm.com , > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , > lucile.casenave at cea.fr , > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , > Sarrazin Robert , > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , > Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , > Fatelnig Peter , > Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , > 'Macmahon, Tara' , > fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , > kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > > Hi All, > > > > To avoid multiple parallel paths in this discussion I would really > appreciate if you gave you feedback through your projects as I simply don?t > know to which projects each of you belongs. To ensure a little more > clarify on this discussion I will give a quick outline of the background > and status. But then please work through the projects. > > > > We are in this discussion as, at the negotiation meeting of the Phase 2 > projects of the FI-PPP, the commission presented a text which they want to > include in the DoW of the FI-PPP projects. We entered into a discussion > with them to try and better align the text with the Collaboration > Agreement, while recognising that visible improvements of the FI-PPP > management were required. The programme reviews identifying the need for > improvement are pubic documents. The commission agreed to have this > discussion with us on the basis we supported some improvements. > > > > To close a point that comes up often: please understand that the > commission will not accept any statements saying the Collaboration > Agreement rules over the Frame Agreement as they are not party to the > Collaboration Agreement. > > > > Having said that, FI-Ware is leading a discussion on having a suitable > reference to the Collaboration Agreement in the text and we have included > the Collaboration Agreement lists of SB and AB responsibilities in revision > 5 to ensure alignment. The commission are willing to acknowledge and > respect the existence of the CA. > > > > On resources: The new projects in phase 2 are being asked to allocate > resources to the programme level working groups in their DoWs ? this is > part of their negotiation. On-going FI-PPP projects will implement > amendments in due course and the commission expects them to make similar > allocations when doing their amendments. Like all amendments, the project > participants will negotiate and agree whatever changes are necessary with > their project officers and revise their DoW accordingly. We don?t need to > repeat in the text that the changes in any project amendment need to be > agreed with the project participants as this is how such changes are made. > > > > The level of resources for programme activities are to be handled > individually with the projects and, in the case of on-going projects, it is > expected some resources are already allocated to programme activities so > the discussion will simply be if this is sufficient. The statements in the > text are upper limits to protect us from the programme level requirements > exploding. > > > > The roles of specific organisational bodies are highlighted intentionally > as the purpose of the whole action is to strengthen the commitment of the > projects to the FI-PPP governance structure. The visibility of these roles > is key to improving the performance. The changes proposed are because the > reviews identified these weaknesses. > > > > For example: the programme chair *responsibility to ensure the overall > management of the program is effective and functioning as required *is > actually the same responsibility all participants have. Collectively we > must make sure the programme is working and, while we may have a figurehead > with the nominal responsibility, we all need to be proactive to ensure it > works well. The Steering board was particularly identified as weak ? maybe > we need to clarify in section 3.2 that it approves the *COMMON*milestones for the projects (as described in the CA) - but it cannot be > passive if the inter-project activities are not progressing. Same for the > AB - it has to be seen to be more proactive. Having said this, the > collaboration agreement frequently repeats the caveats about how decisions > of the SB and AB involving resources are treated by the projects and the > Collaboration Agreement is still every bit as valid as it was in phase 1. > > > > > I accepted this action to progress the text on Governance on the basis > that the highlighting of the some of the interworking requirements and > improving the effectiveness of parts of the structure are fully in the > spirit of the programme and the collaboration agreement. I also understood > that visible changes are necessary because of the poor reviews and the poor > performance of some of the programme elements in phase 1. The main > challenge was to see if we could implement such improvements without > needing to amend the CA. I believe we are getting there thanks to the > inputs received to date. > > > > However, if you believe that the minimal changes in emphasis proposed > require a change in the Collaboration Agreement then the Steering board has > the responsibility (as described in the CA) to propose the amendment or > addendum necessary. > > > > Revision 5 of the Governance text elaborates a number of points on how the > structures of the FI-PPP, as created in phase 1, can be tuned to be a > little more effective in phase 2. It has been a constructive ? if > sometimes difficult - discussion to get to revision 5 and hopefully we can > end this discussion soon and get on with the work. > > > > As requested above, please understand that improvements are necessary and > assist your project leaders to get these implemented as efficiently as > possible. > > > > Thanks for your support on this, > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Macmahon, Tara [mailto:tara.macmahon at intel.com] > > *Sent:* 07 March 2013 15:19 > *To:* fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > *Cc:* David Kennedy; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; > michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; > Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; > armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; > laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; > Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Sarrazin Robert; "Essi Heinanen > _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > *Subject:* RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > Hi all > > > > Thanks to everyone for keeping us up-to-date on discussions around this. > > > > *1. **We would not agree with the statement on the last page that > ?all of the structures outlined above are in line with the principles and > definitions of the current Collaboration Agreement?. *We agree with > IBM?s comments of 11 February, that a sentence is needed in the document > that states: *"In the event of any conflict between this text and the > Collaboration Agreement provisions, the Collaboration Agreement provisions > shall apply."*** > > * * > > *2. **We would not agree that the document could be included in the > DOWs of the current live projects. Eg, t**here are a number of statements > requiring existing projects to re-allocate resources/make resources > available for programme-level activities. *We agree with Fraunhofer?s > comments of Tuesday, that additional activities/resourcing requirements > cannot be carried out with the existing funding. Instead, we suggest text > be included in the document along the lines:** > > ? *?For existing projects, the consortium members will agree, in > accordance with the terms of their Consortium Agreement terms how resources > can be allocated/re-allocated for the programme-level activities envisaged > in this document, it being always recognised that.** for existing > projects, no consortium partner can be required to make additional > resources available without its written agreement, and that any > re-allocation of budget or resources from any particular work activity/ > consortium partner can only be made with the agreement of that consortium > partner, and that partner?s work scope/work activity will need to be > varied/reduced accordingly?* > > * * > > *3. **The document needs to be clearer around what resources need > to be made available ? eg: statements that need to be clarified:* > > o * ?The projects must allocate resources to the working groups defined > in this section in their project contract DOWs?* (see Section 3.2 > (Steering Board), para 3) > > o *?The individual projects commit to reserve reasonable funds and > allocate staff for each working group within their respective work plans?? > * (see Section 3.5 (Working Groups), last bullet under ?Operational > Aspects?). > > > > *4. **Some of the bodies seem to be given greater roles. We agree > with the changes requested by IBM around these in their comments of 11 > February ? eg:* > > o *The Programme Chair* should not have *?the responsibility to ensure > the overall management of the program is effective and functioning as > required?*(para 3.1) . Sentence to be deleted. > > o *The Steering Board *should not ?approve? the overall coordination > among the projects. It should only ?supervise and review? (Section 3.2 > (Steering Board), para 5). > > o *Architecture Board: *See changes requested by IBM at Section 3.3. > > * * > > *5. **I can no longer see any potential impact on IP terms, but > please let me know if I?m incorrect?* > > * * > > > > Best regards > > > > Tara > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de [ > mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de ] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:37 PM > To: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; > michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; > Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; > armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; > laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; > Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; Macmahon, > Tara; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > Dear Kathrin, > > just one clarifying remark to my question in my first mail from today: If > the Commission intends to modify the DoW by implementing the new governance > structure also for running projects it has to be clear that the additional > activities due to the new structure require additional funding as the > existing projects have been calculated in accordance with the DoW's at the > time when the project proposals were submitted. Additional activities > cannot be carried out with the original funding. > > Best regards > > Fabian Perpeet > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Ireland Limited (Branch) > Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland > Registered Number: E902934 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > > -- 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 axel.fasse at sap.com Fri Mar 8 09:05:30 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:05:30 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] smart city charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Stefano, I am totally aware of the fact that the OIL is an excellent opportunity to support these kinds of activities and provides an unique exploitation opportunity. But I am really afraid about the discussed timeline. So far as I know - hopefully I am wrong - we actually have no "contract" that explains the rights and obligations of the usage of our OIL. If Juanjo agrees I would suggest this topic in the next WPL/WPA Call. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Freitag, 8. M?rz 2013 01:18 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] smart city charter dear all, as agreed during our last phc on the matter, please find attached the smart city charter. it contains also a quite stringet time schedule for us and the selected cities. happy to discuss it via email, but also through a dedicated phc to be called by juanjo and hold before next 15th march (I'm available from 13 afternoon onwards). ciao, stefano -- 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 werner.mohr at nsn.com Fri Mar 8 10:29:09 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:29:09 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <51387814.7010203@tid.es> References: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> <51387814.7010203@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, I have one comment on the following text: * 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" NO - this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don't need to hide behind recommendations. Comment Werner: ? The Steering Board has no decision power and can also not get such decision power on its own. The feedback from the consortia is essential and the coordinator has to act based on the support of his consortium. ? I understand that the Collaboration Agreement is lower in the hierarchy of documents and is below the Grant Agreement. It would make sense to remove the hint to the Collaboration Agreement. ? However, we have to consider Annex II, Article II.2: (Peter explained in his mail that Annex II is overwriting Annex I and therefore Annex II has to be respected by all stakeholders) II.2. Organisation of the consortium and role of coordinator 1. All the beneficiaries together form the consortium, whether or not they enter into a separate written consortium agreement. Beneficiaries are represented towards the Commission by the coordinator, who shall be the intermediary for any communication between the Commission and any beneficiary, with the exceptions foreseen in this grant agreement. 2. The financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the project shall be paid to the coordinator who receives it on behalf of the beneficiaries. The payment of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation on payments. 3. The coordinator shall: a) administer the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] regarding its allocation between beneficiaries and activities, in accordance with this grant agreement and the decisions taken by the consortium. The coordinator shall ensure that all the appropriate payments are made to the other beneficiaries without unjustified delay; b) keep the records and financial accounts making it possible to determine at any time what portion of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] has been paid to each beneficiary for the purposes of the project; c) inform the Commission of the distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] and the date of transfers to the beneficiaries, when required by this grant agreement or by the Commission; d) d) review the reports to verify consistency with the project tasks before transmitting them to the Commission; e) monitor the compliance by beneficiaries with their obligations under this grant agreement. The coordinator may not subcontract the above-mentioned tasks. 4. Beneficiaries shall fulfil the following obligations as a consortium: a) provide all detailed data requested by the Commission for the purposes of the proper administration of this project; b) carry out the project jointly and severally vis-?-vis [the Union] [Euratom], taking all necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that the project is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of this grant agreement. c) make appropriate internal arrangements consistent with the provisions of this grant agreement to ensure the efficient implementation of the project. When provided for in Article 1.4 these internal arrangements shall take the form of a written consortium agreement (the "consortium agreement"). The consortium agreement governs inter alia the following: i. the internal organisation of the consortium including the decision making procedures; ii. rules on dissemination and use, and access rights; iii. the distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom]; iv. the settlement of internal disputes, including cases of abuse of power; v. liability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries. d) engage, whenever appropriate, with actors beyond the research community and with the public in order to foster dialogue and debate on the research agenda, on research results and on related scientific issues with policy makers and civil society; create synergies with education at all levels and conduct activities promoting the socioeconomic impact of the research. e) allow the Commission to take part in meetings concerning the project. ? According to Annex II the coordinator has an administrative role. ? The heavily debated word "monitor" is coming from Annex II and not from the Collaboration Agreement. 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: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:21 PM To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Hi all, Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally. However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments. Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same. I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO - this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don't need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Fri Mar 8 12:49:00 2013 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:49:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: <51387635.8030900@tid.es> <51387814.7010203@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, Still waiting for feedback from our legal department, but here is a short comment for now. Current FI-WARE DoW defers to PPP Collaboration Agreement regarding everything related to cross-project governance: Section B.2.1.2.1 Architecture Board (ARB): "The programme collaboration agreement will define the mandate, tasks and composition of the Architecture Board in more detail", and similarly for SB, ADB, WGs in the following sections. Section B.2.1.2.5 General provisions: "The programme collaboration agreement further elaborates on the definitions, mandates and operational rules of every element of the governance structure. Their application shall be binding for FI-WARE". This does not contradict the fact that DoW generally prevails over Collaboration Agreement. But if the new governance details are added to DoW directly, we will have two places addressing the same set of issues, and it will be a nightmare to understand what is going on (even knowing that one of them prevails over the other). How this ambiguity is going to be resolved? Is the new governance document going to override (and make obsolete) the entire Article 3 of the Collaboration Agreement (12 pages)? If this is the suggested approach -- I think it should be clear to everyone. Then, it might make sense to copy everything currently described there to the new document (with necessary adjustments), explicitly stating that this replaces Article 3 of the Collaboration Agreement (or something like that -- I am not a lawyer..). Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 From: "Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: ext Juanjo Hierro , "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 08/03/2013 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear Juanjo, I have one comment on the following text: 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. Comment Werner: ? The Steering Board has no decision power and can also not get such decision power on its own. The feedback from the consortia is essential and the coordinator has to act based on the support of his consortium. ? I understand that the Collaboration Agreement is lower in the hierarchy of documents and is below the Grant Agreement. It would make sense to remove the hint to the Collaboration Agreement. ? However, we have to consider Annex II, Article II.2: (Peter explained in his mail that Annex II is overwriting Annex I and therefore Annex II has to be respected by all stakeholders) II.2. Organisation of the consortium and role of coordinator 1. All the beneficiaries together form the consortium, whether or not they enter into a separate written consortium agreement. Beneficiaries are represented towards the Commission by the coordinator, who shall be the intermediary for any communication between the Commission and any beneficiary, with the exceptions foreseen in this grant agreement. 2. The financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the project shall be paid to the coordinator who receives it on behalf of the beneficiaries. The payment of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation on payments. 3. The coordinator shall: a) administer the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] regarding its allocation between beneficiaries and activities, in accordance with this grant agreement and the decisions taken by the consortium. The coordinator shall ensure that all the appropriate payments are made to the other beneficiaries without unjustified delay; b) keep the records and financial accounts making it possible to determine at any time what portion of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] has been paid to each beneficiary for the purposes of the project; c) inform the Commission of the distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] and the date of transfers to the beneficiaries, when required by this grant agreement or by the Commission; d) d) review the reports to verify consistency with the project tasks before transmitting them to the Commission; e) monitor the compliance by beneficiaries with their obligations under this grant agreement. The coordinator may not subcontract the above-mentioned tasks. 4. Beneficiaries shall fulfil the following obligations as a consortium: a) provide all detailed data requested by the Commission for the purposes of the proper administration of this project; b) carry out the project jointly and severally vis-?-vis [the Union] [Euratom], taking all necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that the project is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of this grant agreement. c) make appropriate internal arrangements consistent with the provisions of this grant agreement to ensure the efficient implementation of the project. When provided for in Article 1.4 these internal arrangements shall take the form of a written consortium agreement (the " consortium agreement"). The consortium agreement governs inter alia the following: i. the internal organisation of the consortium including the decision making procedures; ii. rules on dissemination and use, and access rights; iii. the distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom]; iv. the settlement of internal disputes, including cases of abuse of power; v. liability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries . d) engage, whenever appropriate, with actors beyond the research community and with the public in order to foster dialogue and debate on the research agenda, on research results and on related scientific issues with policy makers and civil society; create synergies with education at all levels and conduct activities promoting the socioeconomic impact of the research. e) allow the Commission to take part in meetings concerning the project. ? According to Annex II the coordinator has an administrative role. ? The heavily debated word ?monitor? is coming from Annex II and not from the Collaboration Agreement. 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: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:21 PM To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Hi all, Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally. However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments. Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which, at the end of the day, is the same. I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary amendment. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: 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" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Fri Mar 8 13:09:10 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:09:10 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FW: [Fiware-ga] Comments on Revision 5 of the FI-WARE Governance Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, please note, that the version 5 send around by David Kennedy still does not respect the anti-trust law concerns of some of the partners. As these concerns are very serious, SAP takes those concerns as very urgent and important. You have not included those concerns in your preliminary comments on behalf of Fi-Ware to the EC, on which you do not have the mandate upon from the entire Fi-Ware consortium. You only have the mandate to send your comments, if you have not the sufficient majority from the GA. Please show SAP, that you had the sufficient majority, with no veto from other partners. For SAP, we do veto the inclusion of the proposed DOW inclusion due to the fact that breaches of anti-trust law have been raised without sufficient concerns. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 8 17:54:55 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:54:55 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <51389B83.4010305@tid.es> References: <5138933F.80500@tid.es> <51389B83.4010305@tid.es> Message-ID: dear juanjo, actually, reading well the email from peter (he was quite clever ...), the precedence is of course to the dow, but since the dow will contain the governance model (.... here is the cleverness ....) it will go over the collaboration agreement and consortium agreement. so please, read everything very varefully. my two cents as a mathematician, not as a lawyer which i'm not. stefano 2013/3/7 Juanjo Hierro > Hi all, > > Here it goes the reaction of David Kennedy to my response to his > comments. > > Telefonica believes that what David proposes is ok and can be accepted > as formula to accommodate to the changes we proposed in the first place. > > As I have told David, the solution he proposes are ok but I wanted to > double-check with the rest of the FI-WARE partners before giving a > definitive answer. > > So then you have to answer to the following question ... would you agree > that the solutions proposed by David are ok to close the comments we made > on this two matters ? > > If I don't hear of any objection by EOB today, I will presume it is ok > to you. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: > Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:16:47 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: > David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig > Peter , > "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" > , > "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" > , > Lakaniemi Ilkka > > On 07/03/13 13:23, David Kennedy wrote: > > Hi Juanjo, > > > > ITEM 1: AB responsibilities ? OK we are at cross purposes here. I > understood you wanted to change the text were we quote the CA and this I > did not want to do as I would be attacked for not quoting it correctly. > > > > However, if you mean simply add these clarifications to the AB role - I > think we can do this. > > > > I propose we add two Bullet points in section 3.3 under operation: > > ? continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program, > evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical > divergence, including for example: how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE > Generic Enablers are implemented by the UC projects, > > ? analyse the standardization activities identified by any FII > Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level > standardization activities to be carried out in the Standardization Working > Group > > > > and we simply don?t insist they are 100% aligned with the CA text in annex > 1. > > That should be fine. > > > > ITEM 2: PrC - I think you have found the middle ground here except for > the use of recommendation. If I can rearrange it slightly for better > readability I would propose to keep the link to the SB agenda so people > cannot say they don?t know what the issues they are asked to consider are. > > (NOTE: what I saw this week as an agenda for the SB needs dramatic > improvement ? a clear agenda would help solve a lot of problems here !!!): > > > > "PrCs, and other project representatives, should discuss the proposals for > the SB decisions in their respective projects according to their internally > defined procedures, involving all project partners prior to the SB meeting, > in order to get the necessary mandate to discuss, negotiate and decide > about the SB agenda items. > > > That should be fine as well > > The CA contains enough about handling SB decisions ? particularly when > resources are impacted - so this is covered. As you were concerned > earlier, this might imply that we are unable to handle new issues on the > fly but I think these things will work better in practice when the team is > used to working together. > > > I also hope so :-) > > > > Would this cover your requirements? > > > In my opinion, yes. But let me share this with the rest of FI-WARE > prior to give you a final answer. Nevertheless, sure this is better than > what we had before so I would even go implementing the proposed changes to > move fast. > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo > > > > David > > > > > > > > *From:* Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es ] > *Sent:* 07 March 2013 12:13 > *To:* David Kennedy > *Cc:* Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; > Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? > > *Subject:* Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 > > > > On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: > > > > > - 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: "" > > *It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to > ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments.* > > > Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the > AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers > are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear > this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. > Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. > > Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine > what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do > that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the > Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization > activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue > recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be > handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely > coexist. > * > > > * > > - 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" > > *NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and > the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions > so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations.* > > > > If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just > say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their > project according to their internally defined procedures involving all > project partners in order to 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". > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > > -- 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 jhierro at tid.es Fri Mar 8 18:15:56 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:15:56 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: References: <5138933F.80500@tid.es> <51389B83.4010305@tid.es> Message-ID: <513A1CCC.8080902@tid.es> That's why introducing changes in the DoW (in a synchronized way, in all FI-PPP projects) is a pragmatic mean to fast-track changes in the Collaboration Agreement in practice. Then, of course, the Collaboration Agreement can be amended to fully align with what the DoW says, but without any time pressure. Telefonica supports this as a pragmatic approach. Of course, that means partners have to check carefully what changes are incorporated in the DoW, but I guess everyone does so already. We know that there are partners that object to this, but they should make their point directly to the EC at this point of the discussion and manage to convince them before the request about adding the new governance model in the next amendment of the FI-WARE DoW arrives. I honestly doubt they will succeed, in which case they should actually start thinking what they plan to do. Not signing the amendment of the DoW which incorporates the new governance model might be a possible response on their side, but then they have to balance the contra-measurements such measurement may trigger. 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) 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 08/03/13 17:54, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, actually, reading well the email from peter (he was quite clever ...), the precedence is of course to the dow, but since the dow will contain the governance model (.... here is the cleverness ....) it will go over the collaboration agreement and consortium agreement. so please, read everything very varefully. my two cents as a mathematician, not as a lawyer which i'm not. stefano 2013/3/7 Juanjo Hierro > Hi all, Here it goes the reaction of David Kennedy to my response to his comments. Telefonica believes that what David proposes is ok and can be accepted as formula to accommodate to the changes we proposed in the first place. As I have told David, the solution he proposes are ok but I wanted to double-check with the rest of the FI-WARE partners before giving a definitive answer. So then you have to answer to the following question ... would you agree that the solutions proposed by David are ok to close the comments we made on this two matters ? If I don't hear of any objection by EOB today, I will presume it is ok to you. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:16:47 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: David Kennedy CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" , Lakaniemi Ilkka On 07/03/13 13:23, David Kennedy wrote: Hi Juanjo, ITEM 1: AB responsibilities ? OK we are at cross purposes here. I understood you wanted to change the text were we quote the CA and this I did not want to do as I would be attacked for not quoting it correctly. However, if you mean simply add these clarifications to the AB role - I think we can do this. I propose we add two Bullet points in section 3.3 under operation: ? continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program, evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical divergence, including for example: how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by the UC projects, ? analyse the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be carried out in the Standardization Working Group and we simply don?t insist they are 100% aligned with the CA text in annex 1. That should be fine. ITEM 2: PrC - I think you have found the middle ground here except for the use of recommendation. If I can rearrange it slightly for better readability I would propose to keep the link to the SB agenda so people cannot say they don?t know what the issues they are asked to consider are. (NOTE: what I saw this week as an agenda for the SB needs dramatic improvement ? a clear agenda would help solve a lot of problems here !!!): "PrCs, and other project representatives, should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their respective projects according to their internally defined procedures, involving all project partners prior to the SB meeting, in order to get the necessary mandate to discuss, negotiate and decide about the SB agenda items. That should be fine as well The CA contains enough about handling SB decisions ? particularly when resources are impacted - so this is covered. As you were concerned earlier, this might imply that we are unable to handle new issues on the fly but I think these things will work better in practice when the team is used to working together. I also hope so :-) Would this cover your requirements? In my opinion, yes. But let me share this with the rest of FI-WARE prior to give you a final answer. Nevertheless, sure this is better than what we had before so I would even go implementing the proposed changes to move fast. Cheers, -- Juanjo David From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 March 2013 12:13 To: David Kennedy Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: * 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: "" It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments. Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist. * 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" NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations. If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to 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". 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 ________________________________ 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-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga -- 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 ________________________________ 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 stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 8 19:06:35 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 19:06:35 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 In-Reply-To: <513A1CCC.8080902@tid.es> References: <5138933F.80500@tid.es> <51389B83.4010305@tid.es> <513A1CCC.8080902@tid.es> Message-ID: still mi issue remains valid: do we all need all of this becouse concord failed and becouse some of the people sitting in the sb were not collaborative (to say the least)? only changing the attitude and having concord working as their contract imposes clearly to them will really change the situation. at the end of the day if a project does not work is responsibility of the commission and cannot be put on the shoulders of others. it is them who have to take onbord their responsibility and act wrt concord! anyway, i firmly believe a more proactive role of fi-ware on top of all and as overall guide, done in smooth way, will really take all of us out of this. legal impositions simply will not work .... nice week end to everybody! ciao, stefano 2013/3/8 Juanjo Hierro > > That's why introducing changes in the DoW (in a synchronized way, in all > FI-PPP projects) is a pragmatic mean to fast-track changes in the > Collaboration Agreement in practice. Then, of course, the Collaboration > Agreement can be amended to fully align with what the DoW says, but without > any time pressure. > > Telefonica supports this as a pragmatic approach. Of course, that > means partners have to check carefully what changes are incorporated in the > DoW, but I guess everyone does so already. > > We know that there are partners that object to this, but they should > make their point directly to the EC at this point of the discussion and > manage to convince them before the request about adding the new governance > model in the next amendment of the FI-WARE DoW arrives. I honestly doubt > they will succeed, in which case they should actually start thinking what > they plan to do. Not signing the amendment of the DoW which incorporates > the new governance model might be a possible response on their side, but > then they have to balance the contra-measurements such measurement may > trigger. > > > 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) 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 08/03/13 17:54, stefano de panfilis wrote: > > dear juanjo, > > actually, reading well the email from peter (he was quite clever ...), > the precedence is of course to the dow, but since the dow will contain the > governance model (.... here is the cleverness ....) it will go over the > collaboration agreement and consortium agreement. > > so please, read everything very varefully. > > my two cents as a mathematician, not as a lawyer which i'm not. > stefano > > > 2013/3/7 Juanjo Hierro > >> Hi all, >> >> Here it goes the reaction of David Kennedy to my response to his >> comments. >> >> Telefonica believes that what David proposes is ok and can be accepted >> as formula to accommodate to the changes we proposed in the first place. >> >> As I have told David, the solution he proposes are ok but I wanted to >> double-check with the rest of the FI-WARE partners before giving a >> definitive answer. >> >> So then you have to answer to the following question ... would you >> agree that the solutions proposed by David are ok to close the comments we >> made on this two matters ? >> >> If I don't hear of any objection by EOB today, I will presume it is ok >> to you. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- Juanjo >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision >> 4 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:16:47 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro >> To: David Kennedy >> CC: Fatelnig Peter >> , >> "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" >> , >> "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" >> , >> Lakaniemi Ilkka >> >> On 07/03/13 13:23, David Kennedy wrote: >> >> Hi Juanjo, >> >> >> >> ITEM 1: AB responsibilities ? OK we are at cross purposes here. I >> understood you wanted to change the text were we quote the CA and this I >> did not want to do as I would be attacked for not quoting it correctly. >> >> >> >> However, if you mean simply add these clarifications to the AB role - I >> think we can do this. >> >> >> >> I propose we add two Bullet points in section 3.3 under operation: >> >> ? continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII >> Program, evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of >> technical divergence, including for example: how recommendations on usage >> of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by the UC projects, >> >> ? analyse the standardization activities identified by any FII >> Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level >> standardization activities to be carried out in the Standardization Working >> Group >> >> >> >> and we simply don?t insist they are 100% aligned with the CA text in >> annex 1. >> >> That should be fine. >> >> >> >> ITEM 2: PrC - I think you have found the middle ground here except for >> the use of recommendation. If I can rearrange it slightly for better >> readability I would propose to keep the link to the SB agenda so people >> cannot say they don?t know what the issues they are asked to consider are. >> >> (NOTE: what I saw this week as an agenda for the SB needs dramatic >> improvement ? a clear agenda would help solve a lot of problems here !!!): >> >> >> >> "PrCs, and other project representatives, should discuss the proposals >> for the SB decisions in their respective projects according to their >> internally defined procedures, involving all project partners prior to the >> SB meeting, in order to get the necessary mandate to discuss, negotiate and >> decide about the SB agenda items. >> >> >> That should be fine as well >> >> The CA contains enough about handling SB decisions ? particularly when >> resources are impacted - so this is covered. As you were concerned >> earlier, this might imply that we are unable to handle new issues on the >> fly but I think these things will work better in practice when the team is >> used to working together. >> >> >> I also hope so :-) >> >> >> >> Would this cover your requirements? >> >> >> In my opinion, yes. But let me share this with the rest of FI-WARE >> prior to give you a final answer. Nevertheless, sure this is better than >> what we had before so I would even go implementing the proposed changes to >> move fast. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Juanjo >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es ] >> *Sent:* 07 March 2013 12:13 >> *To:* David Kennedy >> *Cc:* Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; >> Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? >> >> *Subject:* Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4 >> >> >> >> On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> - 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: "" >> >> *It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to >> ensure alignment with the CA. This would just cause arguments.* >> >> >> Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us. Making it clear that the >> AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers >> are implemented by UC projects is key. Actually, we want to make it clear >> this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress. >> Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB. >> >> Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine >> what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do >> that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the >> Standardization WG. Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization >> activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue >> recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be >> handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely >> coexist. >> * >> >> >> * >> >> - 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" >> >> *NO ? this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW >> and the commission will never accept this. And the SB allows for SB >> decisions so we don?t need to hide behind recommendations.* >> >> >> >> If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just >> say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their >> project according to their internally defined procedures involving all >> project partners in order to 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". >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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-ga mailing list >> Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu >> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- 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 jhierro at tid.es Mon Mar 11 01:31:33 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:31:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Message sent to evaluators of third FI-WARE Open Call and list of evaluators. In-Reply-To: <513D1D3C.6090407@tid.es> References: <513D1D3C.6090407@tid.es> Message-ID: <513D25E5.6050102@tid.es> Hi all, Please find below the message sent to evaluators finally selected for the 3rd FI-WARE Open Call. Please treat this info as strictly confidential. The list of evaluators is: Name Company Profile Other useful links Dominic Greenwood Whitestein Technologies (COO) http://ch.linkedin.com/in/dominicgreenwood Sergi Herrero BNP Parriba (COO L'Atelier NA BNP-Paribas) http://linkd.in/XtueYy http://www.bnpparibas.be/en/2013/01/18/sergi-herrero-appointed-new-ceo-of-latelier-bnp-paribas-in-san-francisco/ Thibaut Rouffineau WIP (Mobile Activist) http://www.linkedin.com/in/campbieil Daniel Ben-horin TechSoup Global (CEO) www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-ben-horin/4/248/7b1 http://www.techsoupglobal.org/blog/daniel-ben-horin Jos? Carlos Ramos Forever Us (chairman) http://es.linkedin.com/in/josecarlosramos 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PLEASE RESPOND: You have been selected as evaluator in the first FI-WARE Open Call - on the topic Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:54:36 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: dgr at whitestein.com , Daniel Ben-Horin , thibaut at wipconnector.com, Sergi.herrero at mail.atelier.net, jcramos at avanzalis.com CC: jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" , Javier de Pedro Sanchez , CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Dear sirs, After evaluation of all candidatures, I'm glad to tell you you that you have been finally selected as evaluator of the third FI-WARE Open Call. Please read carefully all the information below. FI-WARE is a project targeted to deliver a novel service platform, building upon elements (called Generic Enablers) which offer reusable and commonly shared functions making it easier to develop Future Internet Applications in multiple sectors - building a true foundation for the Future Internet. The project will develop public and royalty-free Open Specifications of Generic Enablers, together with a reference implementation of them available for testing. You can think about FI-WARE as a platform similar to Amazon's Web Services but genuinely open (third parties can implement FI-WARE specifications royalty-free as well as deploy and operate their own FI-WARE instances) and providing more value added services in a number of areas like the Internet of Things. FI-WARE is the cornerstone of the Future Internet PPP Programme, a joint action by the European Industry and the European Commission. As mentioned in the first email we sent to you, the goal of the third FI-WARE Open Call is to incorporate new partners to the FI-WARE project who will be in charge of implementing a plan targeted to: * Take up of FI-WARE results by Internet application developers and entrepreneurs * Creation and support of a dynamic innovation ecosystem around FI-WARE results * Achieve maximum market visibility for the technologies and services developed by FI-WARE We have had to update the calendar that we sent to you in our previous mail due to the experienced delay during selection of evaluators. The final calendar to be followed during this evaluation process has been defined as follows: * Self training of evaluators (on FI-WARE project) - 10/03/13 - 17/03/13 (this can be organized as 1 and a half net day of self-training to be carried out off-line by selected evaluators on their own based on a dossier of information. In addition an on-line training and briefing session of about one and a half hour will be organized) * Assignment of Proposals for review and evaluation period - 10/03/13 - 19/03/13 * Evaluators consensus meeting - day to be agreed during the period 20/03/13-22/03/13 * Edition of Open Call Evaluation Report - 22/03/13 - 19/04/13 (this activity will be carried out by FI-WARE based on results of the evaluators consensus meeting) * Open Call Evaluation Report sent to the European Commission - 19/04/1 Please confirm that the proposed calendar is still fine with you. As you see, the self-training and evaluation period have been defined to start in parallel to provide maximum flexibility to you in organizing your time. We have received four proposals, therefore the following is our estimation about time needed (indeed upper limit) and payment offered: * two full-days training on FI-WARE, to be organized as self-training plus a training session that we will organize as described below. Payment will therefore be = 450EUR * 2 = 900 EUR * two full-days for remote evaluation of proposals. Payment will therefore be = 450EUR * 2 = 900 EUR * one additional day splitted in half-day for the consensus meeting (confcall) and the time devoted afterwards to review the final report off-line: 450 EUR * total: 2.250 EUR The Self-training period is a period during which we assume you will review some essential information about the FI-WARE project that may help you in performing your evaluation. There is plenty of information about the FI-WARE project. However, here it is our recommendation: * Perform steps 1 and 2 of the quick FI-WARE tour at: http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Quick_FI-WARE_tour * Read text of the third FI-WARE Open Call: http://www.fi-ware.eu/open-call/ * Check published guidelines for applicants to the third FI-WARE Open Call: http://www.fi-ware.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/FI-WARE_Open_Call_Guide_for_applicants-Open-Call-3.docx Despite we believe it would not be strictly necessary for carrying out the evaluation of proposals, you can of course learn more details about FI-WARE by taking a look at the FI-WARE Architecture Description: * FI-WARE Architecture Description: http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Architecture Of course, we are happy to respond any question you wish to formulate during your self-training. We offer a virtual training session on the second half of this week (Wednesday 13 - Friday 15). Members of the FI-WARE project team will attend this session and will provide valuable information about the FI-WARE project as well as the specific goals of this Open Call that may help you during the evaluation process. They may also answer any question you may have. Please cast your preferences in the following doodle poll in order to fix a suitable date/time for the confcall+webex. Attendance, of course, is not mandatory but evaluators of previous open calls have found this session extremely useful: http://www.doodle.com/33t55ugt5c62n4rw Evaluation of proposals should close before March 19 EOB. We want to emphasize that the evaluation will be remote (no need to travel) but we expect that you will devote up to 2 full working days for the evaluation of proposals. You will also have to send an evaluation form per each of the proposals being evaluated (4 proposals in total). The evaluation will end up with a consensus virtual meeting that will take place some day between March 20-22. This meeting typically last about 3-4 hours, with some break in between. We will setup a doodle poll in the following days to find the most suitable date and timeslot for this consensus meeting. If you agree with the proposed process and compensation, we ask you to confirm your acceptance no later than March 12th, 12:00pm by sending me a reply to this message cc Javier de Pedro and Carlos Ralli also in copy of this mail. We will also ask you that you attach to your email a signed NDA that will be sent to you. A hard copy of the signed NDA document should also additionally be sent by postal mail to: Jose Luis Pe?a Sedano Distrito Telef?nica Investigaci?n y Desarrollo Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N 28050 Madrid (Spain) Last but not least, you have to confirm in your response that you don't have any conflict of interest to participate as evaluator in this Open Call. In order to evaluate this, please find enclosed the list of partners involved in the proposals received to 3rd FI-WARE Open Call. We look forward to your response. Kind regards, Juanjo Hierro (on behalf of the FI-WARE Project) ------------- 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 ________________________________ 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: Open Call 3 - Summary of Proposals.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 10004 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 12 08:55:26 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:55:26 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <513EDF6E.5060303@tid.es> Dear partners, FYI. Sorry that I haven't been able to forward this email earlier but I was off-line yesterday. At this point in time, I would like to know if there is any objection to the provided text, apart from the one on making the point on precedence of the DoW over the Consortium and Collaboration Agreement explicit in the text. I have already made this point clear to David Kennedy. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:01:07 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Hi all, Attached is the 6th revision of the Governance model containing the comments received in the last week (mainly from FI-ware). The changes are in sections 3.3 and 4.2. ON COMPETITION LAW: The commission have reassured us that no action on their part, with respect to the EIB, will be in breach of Antitrust rules. From revision 5 we had inserted the statement that: "The FI-PPP Steering Board (SB) agrees to liaise with the EIB on the basis that its construction and operation does not constitute a breach of antitrust law." This ensures we have to the right to verify the correctness of the EIB in this context. ON PRIORITY OF CONTRACTS: The commission clarified for us that: The Commission is party only to the grant agreement, and no other contract relating to the establishment of the mechanisms supporting the FI-PPP. ? Article 10 of the grant agreement (Application of the grant agreement provisions) reads as follows: Any provision of this part of the grant agreement, shall take precedence over the provisions of any of the Annexes. The provisions of Annex III shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex II, and both shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex I. The special clauses set out in Article 7 shall take precedence over any other provisions of this grant agreement. ? The grant agreement and its annexes take precedence over any agreements partners might conclude among themselves, according to article II.3(i) - otherwise the beneficiary is in breach of contract with the Commission. ? Special clause 41, article 5(b) is satisfied by the inclusion of the relevant programme mechanism in the respective annex 1 to the grant agreement. By application of the last sentence of article 10 of the grant agreement and article II.3(i), the programme mechanism in annex 1 shall take precedence over any other provisions in case of conflict. The only question is if we need to add text in our governance model on this. I am not sure it serves any purpose as the priorities are clear in the other contracts. We have the references to the CA for the SB and AB activities but if it is felt an additional reference is necessary would a statement in the introduction reading as below suffice?: "Additional responsibilities for inter-project collaboration are agreed between the FI-PPP participants in their FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement, the terms of which apply in all situations not covered by the Frame Agreement (including DoW) contracts with the commission." If this is required let me know ASAP. CONCLUSION: We are now over time on this action so can the Phase 2 project leaders give me feedback on their project positions as I hope to talk to the commission on Tuesday or Wednesday this week. Many thanks for the constructive 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-6_110313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 280602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Tue Mar 12 09:02:46 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:02:46 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 In-Reply-To: <513EDF6E.5060303@tid.es> References: <513EDF6E.5060303@tid.es> Message-ID: <22770_1363075367_513EE127_22770_3148_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BAB89@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi Juanjo, No main concern for Orange. We agree with the last proposal. 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 12 mars 2013 08:55 ? : fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 Dear partners, FYI. Sorry that I haven't been able to forward this email earlier but I was off-line yesterday. At this point in time, I would like to know if there is any objection to the provided text, apart from the one on making the point on precedence of the DoW over the Consortium and Collaboration Agreement explicit in the text. I have already made this point clear to David Kennedy. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:01:07 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Hi all, Attached is the 6th revision of the Governance model containing the comments received in the last week (mainly from FI-ware). The changes are in sections 3.3 and 4.2. ON COMPETITION LAW: The commission have reassured us that no action on their part, with respect to the EIB, will be in breach of Antitrust rules. From revision 5 we had inserted the statement that: "The FI-PPP Steering Board (SB) agrees to liaise with the EIB on the basis that its construction and operation does not constitute a breach of antitrust law." This ensures we have to the right to verify the correctness of the EIB in this context. ON PRIORITY OF CONTRACTS: The commission clarified for us that: The Commission is party only to the grant agreement, and no other contract relating to the establishment of the mechanisms supporting the FI-PPP. * Article 10 of the grant agreement (Application of the grant agreement provisions) reads as follows: Any provision of this part of the grant agreement, shall take precedence over the provisions of any of the Annexes. The provisions of Annex III shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex II, and both shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex I. The special clauses set out in Article 7 shall take precedence over any other provisions of this grant agreement. * The grant agreement and its annexes take precedence over any agreements partners might conclude among themselves, according to article II.3(i) - otherwise the beneficiary is in breach of contract with the Commission. * Special clause 41, article 5(b) is satisfied by the inclusion of the relevant programme mechanism in the respective annex 1 to the grant agreement. By application of the last sentence of article 10 of the grant agreement and article II.3(i), the programme mechanism in annex 1 shall take precedence over any other provisions in case of conflict. The only question is if we need to add text in our governance model on this. I am not sure it serves any purpose as the priorities are clear in the other contracts. We have the references to the CA for the SB and AB activities but if it is felt an additional reference is necessary would a statement in the introduction reading as below suffice?: "Additional responsibilities for inter-project collaboration are agreed between the FI-PPP participants in their FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement, the terms of which apply in all situations not covered by the Frame Agreement (including DoW) contracts with the commission." If this is required let me know ASAP. CONCLUSION: We are now over time on this action so can the Phase 2 project leaders give me feedback on their project positions as I hope to talk to the commission on Tuesday or Wednesday this week. Many thanks for the constructive 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Tue Mar 12 17:09:42 2013 From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com (Schweppe, Kathrin) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:09:42 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 Message-ID: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E583@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Dear Juanjo, please find attached SAP's revision. There is still missing wording regarding the prevalence. I have inserted two sentences regarding the prevalence, which I think are matching a) the Commission's view regarding the prevalence of documents and b) the applicability of the Collaboration Agreement. If we do not include any clarification, this text is a fast track to breach the Collaboration Agreement. Please note, that David Kennedy did not take over the agreed wording from FI-Ware. He thinks the Project Coordinators and representatives should be only able to decide upon the which items should be on the agenda of the Steering Board rather than deciding the items themselves. This would make the decision power of the Steering Board pretty toothless. In S. 3.2. I included the same sentence as the mandate of the Steering Board Member. This should be consistent throughout the entire governance model. Furthermore, the choice of mediation should be the choice of the partners. Please note, that in the case of a dispute between the EC and a partner, the Grant Agreement foresees a dispute resolution via the competent court of Brussels. It might be worth to reconsider any wording regarding mediation as the EC, or better their Legal Department could consider the mediation sentences in conflict with the Grant Agreement. Thanks and best regards, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-6_110313_revSAP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283509 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-6_110313_revSAP.docx URL: From kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Tue Mar 12 17:12:00 2013 From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com (Schweppe, Kathrin) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:12:00 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 Message-ID: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E5A3@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> I apologize for resending, as I pressed the send button too early. Dear Juanjo, please find attached SAP's revision. There is still missing wording regarding the prevalence. I have inserted two sentences regarding the prevalence, which I think are matching a) the Commission's view regarding the prevalence of documents and b) the applicability of the Collaboration Agreement. If we do not include any clarification, this text is a fast track to breach the Collaboration Agreement. Please note, that David Kennedy did not take over the agreed wording from FI-Ware. He thinks the Project Coordinators and representatives should be only able to decide upon the which items should be on the agenda of the Steering Board rather than deciding the items themselves. This would make the decision power of the Steering Board pretty toothless. In S. 3.2. I included the same sentence as the mandate of the Steering Board Member. This should be consistent throughout the entire governance model. Furthermore, the choice of mediation should be the choice of the partners. Please note, that in the case of a dispute between the EC and a partner, the Grant Agreement foresees a dispute resolution via the competent court of Brussels. It might be worth to reconsider any wording regarding mediation as the EC, or better their Legal Department could consider the mediation sentences in conflict with the Grant Agreement. Thanks and best regards, Kathrin Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. Legal Counsel Global Legal SAP AG Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 69190 Walldorf, Germany T +49 6227 7-64369 F +49 6227 78-54177 E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com http://www.sap.com 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-6_110313_revSAP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283509 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-6_110313_revSAP.docx URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Mar 13 14:21:30 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:21:30 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 In-Reply-To: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E583@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> References: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E583@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <51407D5A.5090007@tid.es> Dear Kathrin, I believe your proposal regarding the prevalence is ok, assuming it is clear that all the DoW has prevalence, not just the fragment of text that will become part of the governance description. Indeed, I believe it would be better if we say: The DOW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, where this governance model does not set up rules for the governance between the FI PPP Projects, the Collaboration agreement applies. Regarding your proposed changes regarding mediation, I don't understand why you are proposing something different than what we proposed after our PCC confcall on the matter. Regarding the other changes you propose, I'm fine with them. Indeed they are capturing what we proposed last time to David. Please clarify me the question on mediation so that I can forward this on behalf of FI-WARE. Opinions from others are of course welcome. 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) 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 12/03/13 17:09, Schweppe, Kathrin wrote: Dear Juanjo, please find attached SAP's revision. There is still missing wording regarding the prevalence. I have inserted two sentences regarding the prevalence, which I think are matching a) the Commission's view regarding the prevalence of documents and b) the applicability of the Collaboration Agreement. If we do not include any clarification, this text is a fast track to breach the Collaboration Agreement. Please note, that David Kennedy did not take over the agreed wording from FI-Ware. He thinks the Project Coordinators and representatives should be only able to decide upon the which items should be on the agenda of the Steering Board rather than deciding the items themselves. This would make the decision power of the Steering Board pretty toothless. In S. 3.2. I included the same sentence as the mandate of the Steering Board Member. This should be consistent throughout the entire governance model. Furthermore, the choice of mediation should be the choice of the partners. Please note, that in the case of a dispute between the EC and a partner, the Grant Agreement foresees a dispute resolution via the competent court of Brussels. It might be worth to reconsider any wording regarding mediation as the EC, or better their Legal Department could consider the mediation sentences in conflict with the Grant Agreement. Thanks and best regards, ________________________________ 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 Mar 13 16:40:55 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:40:55 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments on Rev 6 of FI-PPP governance model Message-ID: <51409E07.6050903@tid.es> Hi, I have produced, based on input of several partners and the agreement reached regarding comments to previous versions, the attached revision of version 6 of the FI-PPP governance model. Unfortunately, we have to move fast, so that unless I heard about any objections, I will send this version to the EC on behalf of the consortium later this evening. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-6 revised FI-WARE.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 285144 bytes Desc: not available URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Wed Mar 13 13:42:57 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:42:57 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 - IBM's Comments In-Reply-To: <513EDF6E.5060303@tid.es> References: <513EDF6E.5060303@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo and All Attached is the draft document with IBM's comments on V6. Here is a summary of IBM's comments: Section 1: We agree with SAP's suggestion to include the language added to Section 1 ------ ".... in order to have a clear regulation between the DOW of each project and the Collaboration Agreement. To our understanding, this clarification should also be accepted by the EU (based on previous emails on this issue)." ------ Section 3.2: We request to make all necessary changes so that section 3.2 will be in line with the agreed-upon language in section 4.2. This is just a simple consistency point which should not create any argument...but nevertheless an important one. Section 3.3 : Please replace "The Architecture Board (AB) will be in charge of the technical aspects" by ---"The Architecture Board (AB) will advise on the technical aspects" ---- since the AB has and advisory role. Please add after " In such cases the AB chairman shall make proposals and help the conflicting parties to reach an agreement. If this does not resolve the problem, professional mediation may be used" the following words: ---- " subject to an agreement between the relevant parties." ---- It should be clarified that the parties are *not* obliged to participate in a professional mediation. Participation in a mediation and allocation of the necessary money and time for that, is a decision that should be taken on a case to case basis, based on concent. Section 2.1 (EIB) - we understand that Thales and some other companies claimed that the provisions in this section may be a breach of anti trust law. We would appreciate your advise what exactly is the concern and how this concern will be address. IBM also request to have an opinion of an antitrust attorney, that the provisions will not be considered as a breach of applicable anti trust law. Best regards, -Yaron From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 12/03/2013 09:55 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear partners, FYI. Sorry that I haven't been able to forward this email earlier but I was off-line yesterday. At this point in time, I would like to know if there is any objection to the provided text, apart from the one on making the point on precedence of the DoW over the Consortium and Collaboration Agreement explicit in the text. I have already made this point clear to David Kennedy. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 6 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:01:07 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Hi all, Attached is the 6th revision of the Governance model containing the comments received in the last week (mainly from FI-ware). The changes are in sections 3.3 and 4.2. ON COMPETITION LAW: The commission have reassured us that no action on their part, with respect to the EIB, will be in breach of Antitrust rules. From revision 5 we had inserted the statement that: ?The FI-PPP Steering Board (SB) agrees to liaise with the EIB on the basis that its construction and operation does not constitute a breach of antitrust law.? This ensures we have to the right to verify the correctness of the EIB in this context. ON PRIORITY OF CONTRACTS: The commission clarified for us that: The Commission is party only to the grant agreement, and no other contract relating to the establishment of the mechanisms supporting the FI-PPP. ? Article 10 of the grant agreement (Application of the grant agreement provisions) reads as follows: Any provision of this part of the grant agreement, shall take precedence over the provisions of any of the Annexes. The provisions of Annex III shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex II, and both shall take precedence over the provisions of Annex I. The special clauses set out in Article 7 shall take precedence over any other provisions of this grant agreement. ? The grant agreement and its annexes take precedence over any agreements partners might conclude among themselves, according to article II.3(i) ? otherwise the beneficiary is in breach of contract with the Commission. ? Special clause 41, article 5(b) is satisfied by the inclusion of the relevant programme mechanism in the respective annex 1 to the grant agreement. By application of the last sentence of article 10 of the grant agreement and article II.3(i), the programme mechanism in annex 1 shall take precedence over any other provisions in case of conflict. The only question is if we need to add text in our governance model on this. I am not sure it serves any purpose as the priorities are clear in the other contracts. We have the references to the CA for the SB and AB activities but if it is felt an additional reference is necessary would a statement in the introduction reading as below suffice?: ?Additional responsibilities for inter-project collaboration are agreed between the FI-PPP participants in their FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement, the terms of which apply in all situations not covered by the Frame Agreement (including DoW) contracts with the commission.? If this is required let me know ASAP. CONCLUSION: We are now over time on this action so can the Phase 2 project leaders give me feedback on their project positions as I hope to talk to the commission on Tuesday or Wednesday this week. Many thanks for the constructive 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-6_110313.docx" deleted by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu https://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-6_110313_IBM.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 282276 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Wed Mar 13 17:04:58 2013 From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com (Schweppe, Kathrin) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:04:58 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 In-Reply-To: <51407D5A.5090007@tid.es> References: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E583@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> <51407D5A.5090007@tid.es> Message-ID: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E99A@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Dear Juanjo, Your wording would explicitly invalidate the entire 12 pages of the entire governance model of the Collaboration Agreement by explicitly excluding that ? Maybe that was unintentional, either way, this is inacceptable. The proposed model is insufficient to regulate the entire governance. It is missing really essential rules for governance between the projects, e.g. the responsibilities of each FI PPP participants, rules for voting and composition of Boards etc. I do not think, it is wise to get rid of all of those rules, esp. those who are undisputed, with your wording. I understand the goal here more as some fine tuning of the governance model and not throwing the entire governance model away. I thought a while about the wording you used regarding mediation. First, I thought it was ok, taking into account the role of the EC foreseen in Rev. 3. However, thinking and analyzing it once more with a changed role of the EC addressing the anti-trust law issues on the EIB, it appeared to me, that a dispute with the EC could appear under this governance model. Dispute resolution with the EC in a FP 7 project is regulated in the Core Grant Agreement S. 9 and with mediation regarding the Governance model for the EIB. The Grant Agreement says clearly that dispute resolution is before the competent court of Brussels without any possibility of mediation with the EC. Having these rules in mind, I doubt, that the EC is accepting mediation on matters of the EIB and they will regard the wording, in so far as it is binding the EC, as invalid. As my proposed wording is emphasizing the choice of the partners regarding mediation, meaning in essence the same as the old wording, it avoids confusion regarding the disputes with the EC. Thanks for your understanding, Kathrin Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. Legal Counsel Global Legal SAP AG Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 69190 Walldorf, Germany T +49 6227 7-64369 F +49 6227 78-54177 E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com http://www.sap.com 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. From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 13. M?rz 2013 14:22 To: Schweppe, Kathrin Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu) (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu); fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; 'fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu) Subject: Re: Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 Dear Kathrin, I believe your proposal regarding the prevalence is ok, assuming it is clear that all the DoW has prevalence, not just the fragment of text that will become part of the governance description. Indeed, I believe it would be better if we say: The DOW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, where this governance model does not set up rules for the governance between the FI PPP Projects, the Collaboration agreement applies. Regarding your proposed changes regarding mediation, I don't understand why you are proposing something different than what we proposed after our PCC confcall on the matter. Regarding the other changes you propose, I'm fine with them. Indeed they are capturing what we proposed last time to David. Please clarify me the question on mediation so that I can forward this on behalf of FI-WARE. Opinions from others are of course welcome. 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) 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 12/03/13 17:09, Schweppe, Kathrin wrote: Dear Juanjo, please find attached SAP's revision. There is still missing wording regarding the prevalence. I have inserted two sentences regarding the prevalence, which I think are matching a) the Commission's view regarding the prevalence of documents and b) the applicability of the Collaboration Agreement. If we do not include any clarification, this text is a fast track to breach the Collaboration Agreement. Please note, that David Kennedy did not take over the agreed wording from FI-Ware. He thinks the Project Coordinators and representatives should be only able to decide upon the which items should be on the agenda of the Steering Board rather than deciding the items themselves. This would make the decision power of the Steering Board pretty toothless. In S. 3.2. I included the same sentence as the mandate of the Steering Board Member. This should be consistent throughout the entire governance model. Furthermore, the choice of mediation should be the choice of the partners. Please note, that in the case of a dispute between the EC and a partner, the Grant Agreement foresees a dispute resolution via the competent court of Brussels. It might be worth to reconsider any wording regarding mediation as the EC, or better their Legal Department could consider the mediation sentences in conflict with the Grant Agreement. Thanks and best regards, ________________________________ 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 Mar 13 20:15:41 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:15:41 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 In-Reply-To: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E99A@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> References: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E583@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> <51407D5A.5090007@tid.es> <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CF9E99A@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <5140D05D.8070903@tid.es> Dear Kathrin, Response between lines ... On 13/03/13 17:04, Schweppe, Kathrin wrote: Dear Juanjo, Your wording would explicitly invalidate the entire 12 pages of the entire governance model of the Collaboration Agreement by explicitly excluding that ? Maybe that was unintentional, either way, this is inacceptable. I cannot see how you can support your statement because of the wording I propose ... Let me elaborate on what I intended to fix with my wording and, if you can come with a better proposal, I would be happy to accept it. Your proposed wording was: The DOW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, where this governance model does not set up rules for the work between the FI PPP Project, the Collaboration agreement applies I clearly support the first sentence which is pretty clear. My problem was with the second sentence. My problem is that I believe that some people may interpret that second sentence as "for anything which is not described in this text for the governance model but is described in the Collaboration Agreement, the Collaboration Agreement applies". In other words, I don't want this sentence as to be interpreted like "This is the only part of the DoW where the DoW will prevail over the Collaboration Agreement". It should be clear that other parts of the DoW (not just this text about the governance model) prevail over what is said in the Collaboration Agreement. When you use the term "work" in the second sentence, work means everything not just governance. An alternative wording that I believe keeps the spirit of what you intend and also solves my concern would be: The DOW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, for those matters about which the DoW, including this governance model, set up rules for the work between the FI PPP Projects, the DoW prevails, otherwise the Collaboration Agreement applies. The proposed model is insufficient to regulate the entire governance. It is missing really essential rules for governance between the projects, e.g. the responsibilities of each FI PPP participants, rules for voting and composition of Boards etc. I do not think, it is wise to get rid of all of those rules, esp. those who are undisputed, with your wording. I understand the goal here more as some fine tuning of the governance model and not throwing the entire governance model away. I just want to make it clear that the rule "The DOW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement" applies for everything in the DoW, not just the text about the governance model. As I have just said, if you find a better wording that cover that concerns, please propose. I thought a while about the wording you used regarding mediation. First, I thought it was ok, taking into account the role of the EC foreseen in Rev. 3. However, thinking and analyzing it once more with a changed role of the EC addressing the anti-trust law issues on the EIB, it appeared to me, that a dispute with the EC could appear under this governance model. Dispute resolution with the EC in a FP 7 project is regulated in the Core Grant Agreement S. 9 and with mediation regarding the Governance model for the EIB. The Grant Agreement says clearly that dispute resolution is before the competent court of Brussels without any possibility of mediation with the EC. Having these rules in mind, I doubt, that the EC is accepting mediation on matters of the EIB and they will regard the wording, in so far as it is binding the EC, as invalid. As my proposed wording is emphasizing the choice of the partners regarding mediation, meaning in essence the same as the old wording, it avoids confusion regarding the disputes with the EC. Honestly, I don't think we were trying (nor should try) to cover disputes with the EC. We were trying to resolve dispute between projects. Therefore, my wording (which was based on what we sent to the EC several days ago) fits well. I also tried to accommodate IBM's comments because they object to talk about "professional mediation" which you introduced here. Best regards, -- Juanjo Thanks for your understanding, Kathrin Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. Legal Counsel Global Legal SAP AG Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 69190 Walldorf, Germany T +49 6227 7-64369 F +49 6227 78-54177 E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com http://www.sap.com 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. From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 13. M?rz 2013 14:22 To: Schweppe, Kathrin Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu) (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu); fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; 'fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu) Subject: Re: Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6 Dear Kathrin, I believe your proposal regarding the prevalence is ok, assuming it is clear that all the DoW has prevalence, not just the fragment of text that will become part of the governance description. Indeed, I believe it would be better if we say: The DOW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, where this governance model does not set up rules for the governance between the FI PPP Projects, the Collaboration agreement applies. Regarding your proposed changes regarding mediation, I don't understand why you are proposing something different than what we proposed after our PCC confcall on the matter. Regarding the other changes you propose, I'm fine with them. Indeed they are capturing what we proposed last time to David. Please clarify me the question on mediation so that I can forward this on behalf of FI-WARE. Opinions from others are of course welcome. 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) 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 12/03/13 17:09, Schweppe, Kathrin wrote: Dear Juanjo, please find attached SAP's revision. There is still missing wording regarding the prevalence. I have inserted two sentences regarding the prevalence, which I think are matching a) the Commission's view regarding the prevalence of documents and b) the applicability of the Collaboration Agreement. If we do not include any clarification, this text is a fast track to breach the Collaboration Agreement. Please note, that David Kennedy did not take over the agreed wording from FI-Ware. He thinks the Project Coordinators and representatives should be only able to decide upon the which items should be on the agenda of the Steering Board rather than deciding the items themselves. This would make the decision power of the Steering Board pretty toothless. In S. 3.2. I included the same sentence as the mandate of the Steering Board Member. This should be consistent throughout the entire governance model. Furthermore, the choice of mediation should be the choice of the partners. Please note, that in the case of a dispute between the EC and a partner, the Grant Agreement foresees a dispute resolution via the competent court of Brussels. It might be worth to reconsider any wording regarding mediation as the EC, or better their Legal Department could consider the mediation sentences in conflict with the Grant Agreement. Thanks and best regards, ________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 14 15:08:54 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:08:54 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Message-ID: <5141D9F6.8040509@tid.es> Hi all, I believe we should schedule a FI-WARE PCC confcall next week to discuss a number of topics: * Briefing from meeting with Neelie Kroes * Report on upcoming SB meeting (Friday March 15) - as far as I understand, there was no topics for decision in the agenda but I guess it is worth giving a report. * Any final revision of the governance model (I bet that we will not have it closed by next week :-) * Next steps in the process regarding selection of smart cities to connect to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab If you have any other topic you believe we should address, please let me know. Please fill the following doodle to find the right date and time slot: http://www.doodle.com/7r4nfv3496i92czm Unless you have a different opinion, I would address revision of the M18 FI-WARE project review report at FI-WARE WPL/WPA level. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Mar 14 15:12:28 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:12:28 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: vision; policy; gov model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5141DACC.6050300@tid.es> Dear all, This is the last info I have regarding the agenda of the SB this Friday. Feel free to send me your comments so that I can take them into account during the meeting. As mentioned in my previous mail, it is supposed that no decisions are expected. I guess it will mostly devoted to bring new SB representatives on board and carry out a smooth transition between Projects in Phase 1 and 2. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: vision; policy; gov model Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:42:06 +0000 From: Riepula Mikko Reply-To: Riepula Mikko , Nuria De-Lama Sanchez To: SB at fi-ppp.eu , maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it , Anastasius Gavras , David Kennedy , Pieter.VanDerLinden at technicolor.com Pieter , Williams Fiona , sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com Gusmeroli , Claudia.Guglielmina at txtgroup.com Guglielmina , (INFSO) (INFSO) , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , Juanjo Hierro CC: Lakaniemi Ilkka , Schaffers Hans , Nuria De-Lama Sanchez , Thomas Bohnert , Meunier Jean-Dominique , "Lionnais Morgane" , Payet Magali Dear current and future SB members, In preparation of our Fri meeting and FYI generally, please find attached certain background material. (No decisions are expected as such in this meeting from the present SB.) - The doc that was requested earlier: V1.0 of the Vision and KPI document from Dec 2012 -- just to close that old point that was dragging due to various reasons. - Policy WG working paper (+ agenda for its meeting tomorrow). We'll hear a quick update on Friday still. - The current state of affairs with the new governance model (rev 6) kind regards, Mikko ps. remember to reply to Nuria too if you can make it to the (late) dinner on Thu 14th! Mr. Mikko Riepula, MSc (Tech) Project Manager Center for Knowledge and Innovation Research (CKIR) Aalto University Lapuankatu 2 00100 Helsinki (PO Box 21230, 00076 Aalto) Finland tel: +358 50 3837378 (mobile) ________________________________ 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 Vision Mission Value Proposition and KPIs v1.0.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 699168 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-PPP Policy Working Paper for Workshop 13March2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 456669 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-PPP Policy Workshop 13March 2013 Agenda.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 242485 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-6_110313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 280602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Mar 14 15:18:02 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:18:02 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week In-Reply-To: <5141D9F6.8040509@tid.es> References: <5141D9F6.8040509@tid.es> Message-ID: <4853_1363270683_5141DC1B_4853_10140_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB6BA@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi Juanjo I would also discuss the topic on license models as versions are circulating through the legal mailing list with too short deadlines and without we are at pcc level aware of the content. 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? : jeudi 14 mars 2013 15:09 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Hi all, I believe we should schedule a FI-WARE PCC confcall next week to discuss a number of topics: * Briefing from meeting with Neelie Kroes * Report on upcoming SB meeting (Friday March 15) - as far as I understand, there was no topics for decision in the agenda but I guess it is worth giving a report. * Any final revision of the governance model (I bet that we will not have it closed by next week :-) * Next steps in the process regarding selection of smart cities to connect to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab If you have any other topic you believe we should address, please let me know. Please fill the following doodle to find the right date and time slot: http://www.doodle.com/7r4nfv3496i92czm Unless you have a different opinion, I would address revision of the M18 FI-WARE project review report at FI-WARE WPL/WPA level. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 14 15:36:43 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:36:43 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week In-Reply-To: <4853_1363270683_5141DC1B_4853_10140_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB6BA@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <5141D9F6.8040509@tid.es> <4853_1363270683_5141DC1B_4853_10140_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB6BA@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <5141E07B.6080705@tid.es> Do you mean the Legal Notice for FI-WARE Open Specifications ? It is not about license models ... The Legal Notice for FI-WARE Open Specifications was finalized by a Task Force created by the PCC long time ago. It was agreed that Task Force would involve SAP, IBM and Telefonica. Members of the task force were asked by us to come with a consolidated version and that is what I understand they have closed and are now communicating to the rest of legal representatives ... Please note that the proposed texts (there will be indeed two options) are quite close with what we are using already attached to the preliminary specifications ... Anyway, I'm happy to add the topic to the agenda. 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) 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 14/03/13 15:18, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Hi Juanjo I would also discuss the topic on license models as versions are circulating through the legal mailing list with too short deadlines and without we are at pcc level aware of the content. 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? : jeudi 14 mars 2013 15:09 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Hi all, I believe we should schedule a FI-WARE PCC confcall next week to discuss a number of topics: * Briefing from meeting with Neelie Kroes * Report on upcoming SB meeting (Friday March 15) - as far as I understand, there was no topics for decision in the agenda but I guess it is worth giving a report. * Any final revision of the governance model (I bet that we will not have it closed by next week :-) * Next steps in the process regarding selection of smart cities to connect to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab If you have any other topic you believe we should address, please let me know. Please fill the following doodle to find the right date and time slot: http://www.doodle.com/7r4nfv3496i92czm Unless you have a different opinion, I would address revision of the M18 FI-WARE project review report at FI-WARE WPL/WPA level. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Mar 14 15:51:19 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:51:19 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week In-Reply-To: <5141E07B.6080705@tid.es> References: <5141D9F6.8040509@tid.es> <4853_1363270683_5141DC1B_4853_10140_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB6BA@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5141E07B.6080705@tid.es> Message-ID: <2294_1363272680_5141E3E8_2294_477_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB73E@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Yes Juanjo, you're right this is related to legal notice but I have in mind that an action had to be launched to add some other volunteers and the PCC did not decide to have two versions so I'm a bit surprised to receive now versions on which lawyers have to provide their feedback without we (PCC) agree on the two options. And expected a feedback in 1 week when only 3 lawyers took several months to achieve this work, I definitively think that this is not reasonable. But we will discuss that later. I would also come back on the composition of the PCC because we have one seat and I do not understand why some of us come with their lawyers or as a team at these meetings. I would appreciate that we come back on the exact composition of the PCC and that each partner deals with its own stuff internally before or after the PCC meeting. Could you launch the doodle for the meeting because some other meetings are planned and if we have to book some timeslots it will be useful to know what are the ones you propose. Thanks and BR Thierry De : Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : jeudi 14 mars 2013 15:37 ? : NAGELLEN Thierry OLNC/OLPS Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Do you mean the Legal Notice for FI-WARE Open Specifications ? It is not about license models ... The Legal Notice for FI-WARE Open Specifications was finalized by a Task Force created by the PCC long time ago. It was agreed that Task Force would involve SAP, IBM and Telefonica. Members of the task force were asked by us to come with a consolidated version and that is what I understand they have closed and are now communicating to the rest of legal representatives ... Please note that the proposed texts (there will be indeed two options) are quite close with what we are using already attached to the preliminary specifications ... Anyway, I'm happy to add the topic to the agenda. 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) 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 14/03/13 15:18, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Hi Juanjo I would also discuss the topic on license models as versions are circulating through the legal mailing list with too short deadlines and without we are at pcc level aware of the content. 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? : jeudi 14 mars 2013 15:09 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Hi all, I believe we should schedule a FI-WARE PCC confcall next week to discuss a number of topics: * Briefing from meeting with Neelie Kroes * Report on upcoming SB meeting (Friday March 15) - as far as I understand, there was no topics for decision in the agenda but I guess it is worth giving a report. * Any final revision of the governance model (I bet that we will not have it closed by next week :-) * Next steps in the process regarding selection of smart cities to connect to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab If you have any other topic you believe we should address, please let me know. Please fill the following doodle to find the right date and time slot: http://www.doodle.com/7r4nfv3496i92czm Unless you have a different opinion, I would address revision of the M18 FI-WARE project review report at FI-WARE WPL/WPA level. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 14 16:09:42 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:09:42 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week In-Reply-To: <2294_1363272680_5141E3E8_2294_477_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB73E@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <5141D9F6.8040509@tid.es> <4853_1363270683_5141DC1B_4853_10140_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB6BA@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5141E07B.6080705@tid.es> <2294_1363272680_5141E3E8_2294_477_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BB73E@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <5141E836.2080802@tid.es> On 14/03/13 15:51, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Could you launch the doodle for the meeting because some other meetings are planned and if we have to book some timeslots it will be useful to know what are the ones you propose. I launched it already ... was in the body of my email: http://www.doodle.com/7r4nfv3496i92czm Cheers, -- Juanjo Thanks and BR Thierry De : Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : jeudi 14 mars 2013 15:37 ? : NAGELLEN Thierry OLNC/OLPS Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Do you mean the Legal Notice for FI-WARE Open Specifications ? It is not about license models ... The Legal Notice for FI-WARE Open Specifications was finalized by a Task Force created by the PCC long time ago. It was agreed that Task Force would involve SAP, IBM and Telefonica. Members of the task force were asked by us to come with a consolidated version and that is what I understand they have closed and are now communicating to the rest of legal representatives ... Please note that the proposed texts (there will be indeed two options) are quite close with what we are using already attached to the preliminary specifications ... Anyway, I'm happy to add the topic to the agenda. 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) 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 14/03/13 15:18, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Hi Juanjo I would also discuss the topic on license models as versions are circulating through the legal mailing list with too short deadlines and without we are at pcc level aware of the content. 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? : jeudi 14 mars 2013 15:09 ? : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall next week Hi all, I believe we should schedule a FI-WARE PCC confcall next week to discuss a number of topics: * Briefing from meeting with Neelie Kroes * Report on upcoming SB meeting (Friday March 15) - as far as I understand, there was no topics for decision in the agenda but I guess it is worth giving a report. * Any final revision of the governance model (I bet that we will not have it closed by next week :-) * Next steps in the process regarding selection of smart cities to connect to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab If you have any other topic you believe we should address, please let me know. Please fill the following doodle to find the right date and time slot: http://www.doodle.com/7r4nfv3496i92czm Unless you have a different opinion, I would address revision of the M18 FI-WARE project review report at FI-WARE WPL/WPA level. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 14 17:23:18 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:23:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next confcall doodle will be closed this evening Message-ID: <5141F976.3080004@tid.es> Hi, Just to let you know. I will announce the final date/time late this evening. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 15 00:59:33 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:59:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Date and time for the next FI-WARE PCC confcall Message-ID: <51426465.7050604@tid.es> Hi, Based on results of the doodle poll, the next FI-WARE PCC confcall will take place on Thursday March 21 at 14:00 CET 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 15 17:21:09 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:21:09 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content In-Reply-To: <59812FF1E287AD4497054F3D2B92B26A0391584D@S-DC-ESTH04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <59812FF1E287AD4497054F3D2B92B26A0391584D@S-DC-ESTH04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <51434A75.9010900@tid.es> Dear all, Please find an email recently sent by the EC regarding governance model and KPIs. Unfortunately, it got wrongly unclassified in my Inbox so it passed unadvertised to me at the very first moment. Regarding the governance model, and as far as I understand, there is a new version coming which should take into consideration the concerns we already expressed to the EC on the governance model (e.g., incorporation of text making precedence of DoW over Agreements more clear). So there is nothing definitive we can say until that version arrives. Regarding the KPIs, I find those defined at programme-level rather hard to measure. It's not clear to me how much useful they will be. On the other hand, KPIs measuring our contribution to the programme (slide 5) are not that bad for us. Regarding project-level KPIs in slide 6, I wonder why they ask for reference implementations in open source when there is no requirement in that respect in the DoW. I will ask for a clarification. Nevertheless, we have a FI-WARE PCC meeting next Thursday to discuss on these points and your input to that meeting is more than welcome. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:35:31 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, As confirmed in our e-mail following the "Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013", here is the additional information regarding common texts/content for inclusion in your Description of Work (DoW). 1) FI-PPP Governance The attached FI-PPP Management Organisation Model text should be included in your DoW. It corresponds to the version 6 of the document that was already circulated to you previously. 2) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) CONCORD made a presentation (attached) on the FI-PPP KPI framework at the workshop. 2a) Project-level: You should include the relevant project-level KPIs from this presentation in your DoW. (NB. It is of course expected that you also include other KPIs that are specific to your project). 2b) Programme-level: Note that CONCORD will establish an evaluation process for the programme-level KPIs and you should therefore ensure that the relevant programme level KPIs and their measuring are foreseen in your DoW, so that your project can contribute accordingly to CONCORD and meet the programme-level objectives. 3) FI-PPP programme communications In addition to your participation in the "Communication and Dissemination Working Group" your DoW's list of dissemination events/activities should include the yearly FI-PPP programme-level event that, as agreed in the workshop, should in principle take place in March 2014 and March 2015. (Venue and exact date will be defined by the working group later). 4) Resources for programme level activities You must explicitly allocate financial and human resources to fulfil your role at the FI-PPP programme level. We request each project to budget for a minimum of 24 person-months per year and 150.000 EURO for the total project duration for FI-PPP programme activities. Finally, when it comes to "Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP" we have already presented this and circulated information about it. We expect this dimension to be fully represented in your DoW. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work and bring the negotiations to a swift close as the formal deadline of 28 February has passed. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:30 PM To: maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it; Anastasius Gavras; pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com; fiona.williams at ericsson.com; sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl; sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com Cc: jimenez at tid.es; jhierro at tid.es; Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi); ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; 'Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es); FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013 - Follow-up Dear Project Co-ordinator of FI-PPP phase II proposal, We would like to thank you and all the project representatives for the active contributions during the workshop. During the finalisation of the FI-PPP Call 2 projects' negotiations we are focusing on the commitment towards the FI-PPP Programme success and strong collaboration implemented by the following actions: * New governance structure reflected by a common text in the DoW. * Quantitative KPIs (notably on the usage of the GEs and the trials): not only for Use Case Trial projects (UC) but also for FI-WARE, XIFI and Concord. KPIs on the external view of the PPP (e.g. success stories) should also be included. * Explicit identification of the GEs that UCs will / intend to use + a validation strategy. * Milestones: * M6: discussion of the architecture approaches of the different UCs vis-?-vis FI-WARE and XIFI --> see draft standard text below. * M6 (at the latest): Information from phase 2 projects about what phase 3 projects may use, a full description, and under what conditions (both inside and outside the PPP). * M6: UCs to provide requirements on infrastructure needs, to be consolidated by XIFI in M6. This does not have to be a UC deliverable per se, but at least the commitment to give this input must be stated. * M15: availability of platforms. The UCs should be aligned along a M15 milestone. --> Concord to make a first draft of a PPP wide GANTT chart reflecting this. * Common articulated approach on FI-PPP programme communications. * Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP reflected by a common text in DoW. * All projects must allocate explicitly financial and human resources to fulfil their roles at the FI-PPP programme level: Governance, management, communications, etc. Amounts for the costs, as well as person-months. * There should be clear Terms & Conditions for usage of GEs and specific enablers with specific deliverables at month 6 and month 15 (within and beyond the FI-PPP). * Public deliverables on Commission websites: --> see standard text below. * Kick-off meetings should be announced to EC and include presentation on the FI-PPP Programme dimension (EC to present when possible). FI-WARE should also be invited to present its role within the FI-PPP. * Participation in FI-PPP Phase 2 Architecture Week. Elements of draft standard texts for DoW, in addition to the ones already provided in relation to the workshop: 1. "The project aims to use the Generic Enablers (and Specific Enablers) in the list / picture below. A draft architecture including Generic Enablers and Specific Enablers will be defined at month X (latest: M6). This architecture will be discussed within the Architecture Board with FI-WARE and XIFI, and suggestions by FI-WARE and XIFI architects will be taken into account for the specification of a revised architecture at month Y." 2. "Deliverables marked as ?public (PU)? in the Dissemination Level column in the Deliverable List table above will be made available to the general public via the project?s web site, within a month after their formal approval in a review report. The deliverables will include a copyright notice. Upon request by the Commission, public deliverables will be made available to the Commission for publication on a Commission web site, with a copyright notice as indicated by the consortium. Such deliverables will be made available to the Commission in a publishable format." The European Commission services will provide the common texts on: * The new governance structure, * The programme related KPIs, * Openness and cooperation towards other initiatives. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom 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: FI PPP Governance Model_20130312.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 272820 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP-Programme-level KPIs.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 478720 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Sat Mar 16 15:29:17 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:17 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <514481BD.20209@tid.es> Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don't know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-7_150313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283451 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Mar 18 01:06:36 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:06:36 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] (no subject) Message-ID: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FEB9DF@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> When: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:00 PM-4:00 PM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris Where: FI-WARE PCC confcall *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ________________________________ 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: 1939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Mar 18 01:06:44 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:06:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] (no subject) Message-ID: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FEBA04@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> When: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:00 PM-4:00 PM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris Where: FI-WARE PCC confcall *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ________________________________ 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: 1939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Mon Mar 18 08:16:35 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:16:35 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, This version is agreeable by IBM. Thank you for coordinating this important multi-party negotiation. Best Regards Yaron ----- Forwarded by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM on 16/03/2013 05:12 PM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 16/03/2013 04:28 PM Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Sent by: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don?t know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-7_150313.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 283451 bytes Desc: not available URL: From werner.mohr at nsn.com Mon Mar 18 16:20:47 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:20:47 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! In-Reply-To: <514481BD.20209@tid.es> References: <514481BD.20209@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, this version of the document is acceptable for Nokia Siemens Networks. 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: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:29 PM To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don't know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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: From kathrin.schweppe at sap.com Mon Mar 18 16:33:34 2013 From: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com (Schweppe, Kathrin) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:33:34 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8648FE968D735E43BC8B686F7F51E4750CFA0193@DEWDFEMB12A.global.corp.sap> Dear Juanjo, I am happy to inform you, that SAP can accept the Version 7 of the Governance Model that now finally contains all of the combined feedback. From our perspective, no further iterations are necessary to discuss that document. Since we cannot accept Version 6 of the document (like IBM), please make sure that this version and not a DOW containing V6 is what is moving forward, as we otherwise will not be able to sign. Regardless of the DOW matter, we still believe that the entire exercise of trying to avoid to amend the Collaboration Agreement by placing clauses in the "new" DOWs is in the end completely insufficient for the program-level purposes of the FI-PPP. The reasons are the following: The DOW binds only the partners in each project. Partners, who will leave the FI PPP after phase I, will not be bound by new DOWs. For them, the EIB and the Project Chair do not exist and will not exist. They will and can ignore completely any recommendation, the EIB makes or any other new provision of the amended DOWs tries to establish at program level. Thus this approach cannot improve anything in regard to results from Phase 1 of the FI-PPP compared to the status quo. While one could assume this as completely theoretical case, it in essence would assume that the Phase II projects in no way build upon the Phase I Projects, which if true were an even bigger failure of the overall program. If any of the new constructs introduced through the new DOWs (i.e. the EIB) tries to recommend to partners in a Phase II project to consider or use the Background of a Phase I Partner who left after Phase I of the FI PPP, the Phase I Partner is not bound to even consider the recommendation of the EIB (while the existing Collaboration Agreement covers their obligations, the new DOW amendments are powerless to provide any benefits to the Phase 2 participants). Further please note, that it is impossible for partners outside of one project to take a look into the DOW of another project. Therefore, the others are not able to control that in all DOW are the same regulations regarding the inter-project work are established. While we of course take this to be true in good confidence, there is no actual way of checking it. The Collaboration Agreement was concluded in Phase I to exactly cover this inter-phase, inter-project work, and adding to individual DOWs is not the way to achieve this. In contrast, the Collaboration Agreement is accessible to all FI PPP Partners and the European Commission as well. Therefore, we assume that the preparation of an Amendment of the Collaboration Agreement containing this governance model from the DOW is necessary. The legal uncertainty caused by this mismatch will make it difficult without an Amendment of the Collaboration Agreement in place and may make it impossible for SAP to sign up for such extended DOWs. Best regards, Kathrin Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M. Legal Counsel Global Legal SAP AG Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 69190 Walldorf, Germany T +49 6227 7-64369 F +49 6227 78-54177 E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com http://www.sap.com 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. _______________________________ From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Yaron Wolfsthal Sent: Montag, 18. M?rz 2013 08:17 To: jhierro at tid.es Cc: Galit Leider; Suzanne Erez; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Dear Juanjo, This version is agreeable by IBM. Thank you for coordinating this important multi-party negotiation. Best Regards Yaron ----- Forwarded by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM on 16/03/2013 05:12 PM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro > To: "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" >, "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" >, Date: 16/03/2013 04:28 PM Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Sent by: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don't know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Mar 18 18:25:22 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:25:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-WARE: possible upcoming requests for speakers In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D83D87@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D83D87@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <51474E02.80000@tid.es> For your info. This is a task we should share among all FI-WARE partners, particularly WPLs/WPAs, each taking care of events in its own country. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE: possible upcoming requests for speakers Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:10:58 +0000 From: To: CC: Dear Juanjo, Just to pre-warn you that we might ask FI-WARE soon for speakers to participate in phase 3 national workshops. Attached is a draft schedule, which will be on our websites soon (when more details are available). At the moment, the organisation of these workshops is rather chaotic with 2 units and FIF involved, but we are working on that. Best regards, Arian. ________________________________ 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_Phase3_Workshops.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 19 09:49:12 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:49:12 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW Message-ID: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> Hi all, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year !). In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you to double-check everything is fine, so we will ask for your confirmation before tomorrow noon. We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v22.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 254498 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Mar 19 09:57:30 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:57:30 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> Message-ID: <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> Hi all, Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of the previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill with a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you only need to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond back to these email with an email with your confirmation/comments together with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about starting date filled regarding WPs you lead. Apologizes for the inconvenience. 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Hi all, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year !). In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you to double-check everything is fine, so we will ask for your confirmation before tomorrow noon. We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v23.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 254926 bytes Desc: not available URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Tue Mar 19 10:15:57 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:15:57 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpa] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, Because not all of our partners are WPL/WPA, I would suggest to send out the this list for the approval directly to each of the partners. So they can agree on their changes and you can close the task. Actually I cannot foresee the "partners" that are involved within you current mailing list, this steps seems to be necessary. What do you think about ma Idea. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 19. M?rz 2013 09:57 To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: subsidies at tid.es; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpa] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW Hi all, Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of the previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill with a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you only need to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond back to these email with an email with your confirmation/comments together with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about starting date filled regarding WPs you lead. Apologizes for the inconvenience. 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Hi all, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year !). In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you to double-check everything is fine, so we will ask for your confirmation before tomorrow noon. We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 19 10:25:44 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:25:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> Message-ID: <22521_1363685147_51482F19_22521_26_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BC1C3@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi all Here are the changes for WP5 no transfer from Ericsson to FT but to Fraunhofer. I did not change the PM but as the funding model is not the same we should not have 16PM for Fraunhofer. 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 19 mars 2013 09:58 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : subsidies at tid.es; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW Hi all, Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of the previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill with a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you only need to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond back to these email with an email with your confirmation/comments together with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about starting date filled regarding WPs you lead. Apologizes for the inconvenience. 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Hi all, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year !). In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you to double-check everything is fine, so we will ask for your confirmation before tomorrow noon. We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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: FI-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v23 FT.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 256785 bytes Desc: FI-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v23 FT.xlsx URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Tue Mar 19 10:44:16 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:44:16 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> Message-ID: Hi Juanjo, concerning I2ND chapter, a couple of weeks ago I sent you a mail proposing to allocate a portion of Ericsson's efforts released in I2ND chapter to Uniroma, to cope with the work they would take in charge for adoption of the Android Flow Monitoring GE (including the possible use of one functionality of this GE for CDI own purposes). Moreover, I found that they don't have efforts allocated in the Integration WP, which is rather strange as they contribute to develop and make available components of two GEs of I2ND chapter. I would propose to allocate a (limited) effort on this too. Can we manage this already at this stage, so that effort would be moved directly to Uniroma? 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: marted? 19 marzo 2013 09:58 A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: subsidies at tid.es; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW Hi all, Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of the previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill with a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you only need to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond back to these email with an email with your confirmation/comments together with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about starting date filled regarding WPs you lead. Apologizes for the inconvenience. 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Hi all, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year !). In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you to double-check everything is fine, so we will ask for your confirmation before tomorrow noon. We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 19 11:04:28 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:04:28 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> Message-ID: <5148382C.2040103@tid.es> This is why we asked for your final confirmation/revision. I don't find any particular issue with your request regarding the I2ND WP. We need to check the implications regarding your request in WP10 with Engineering, leader of that WP. 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) 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 19/03/13 10:44, Garino Pierangelo wrote: Hi Juanjo, concerning I2ND chapter, a couple of weeks ago I sent you a mail proposing to allocate a portion of Ericsson's efforts released in I2ND chapter to Uniroma, to cope with the work they would take in charge for adoption of the Android Flow Monitoring GE (including the possible use of one functionality of this GE for CDI own purposes). Moreover, I found that they don't have efforts allocated in the Integration WP, which is rather strange as they contribute to develop and make available components of two GEs of I2ND chapter. I would propose to allocate a (limited) effort on this too. Can we manage this already at this stage, so that effort would be moved directly to Uniroma? 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: marted? 19 marzo 2013 09:58 A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: subsidies at tid.es; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW Hi all, Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of the previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill with a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you only need to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond back to these email with an email with your confirmation/comments together with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about starting date filled regarding WPs you lead. Apologizes for the inconvenience. 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Hi all, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year !). In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you to double-check everything is fine, so we will ask for your confirmation before tomorrow noon. We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 19 14:29:46 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:29:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] TR: Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Message-ID: <14223_1363699794_51486852_14223_6230_1_458c43a4-5d54-45ca-b797-4ac43532b90b@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Dear Juanjo, This email just to let you know that Version 7 of FI-PPP Phase 2 Governance is acceptable for THALES. 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? : samedi 16 mars 2013 15:29 ? : fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don't know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-7_150313.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 283451 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-7_150313.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Mar 20 00:45:20 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:45:20 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall Message-ID: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FEEC5F@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> When: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:00 PM-4:00 PM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris Where: DCS01 S00P B61 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ________________________________ 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: 2565 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Mar 20 12:17:06 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:17:06 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: More on: Question on acceptance of cost as a result of accepting re-submission of rejected deliverables In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D848EF@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06D848EF@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <51499AB2.7000006@tid.es> Dear all, As you know, I told you that I formulated a question to Arian regarding how cost reports will be managed when re-submitted deliverables are accepted. Please find below the response by Arian. My understanding is that, unless we report a cost for developing a deliverable that is much more than what was initially planned, the costs will be accepted. Regarding how much cost a deliverable was planned, I guess that the EC should rely on information in NEF ... Therefore, I understand we shouldn't expect any bad surprise. Different story, I guess, has to do with deliverables for which re-submission was rejected ... 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: More on: Question on acceptance of cost as a result of accepting re-submission of rejected deliverables Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:51:42 +0000 From: To: CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Acceptance / rejection decisions about costs will only be made when financial and effort figures are present, so in this case at M24. Regarding (temporarily) rejected costs in reporting period 1, and associated deliverables accepted in the M18 review report, such costs would under normal circumstances be accepted. Circumstances would not be normal if e.g. 3x the amount of efforts were spent on a deliverable than planned, without proper justification. Again, that will only be assessed at M24. Best regards, Arian. -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:23 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: subsidies at tid.es; Miguel Carrillo; CNECT-ICT-285248 Subject: More on: Question on acceptance of cost as a result of accepting re-submission of rejected deliverables Dear Arian, Partners also want to know what are the implications, regarding assessment of costs, of the rejection of re-submitted deliverables, overall when no re-submission is requested (e.g., re-submission of deliverable D.2.4.1) Thanks in advance, -- 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) 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 19/03/13 07:34, Juanjo Hierro wrote: > Dear Arian, > > Several partners are asking whether it can be assumed that costs > rejected in the 1st reporting period (M12) review report matching > deliverables that have been re-submitted and accepted in the M18 > review will be then accepted in the 2nd reporting period. > > Could you elaborate on what the official rules of FP7 projects state > in this respect ? > > Thanks in advance, > > -- 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) 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 > ________________________________ 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 manieri at eng.it Tue Mar 19 11:10:50 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:10:50 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] R: URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: <5148382C.2040103@tid.es> References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> <5148382C.2040103@tid.es> Message-ID: <514839AA.1040102@eng.it> Fine with ENG to add UniRoma effort in WP10. A> Il 19/03/2013 11:04, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto: > > This is why we asked for your final confirmation/revision. I don't > find any particular issue with your request regarding the I2ND WP. > We need to check the implications regarding your request in WP10 with > Engineering, leader of that WP. > > 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) 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 19/03/13 10:44, Garino Pierangelo wrote: >> >> Hi Juanjo, >> >> concerning I2ND chapter, a couple of weeks ago I sent you a mail >> proposing to allocate a portion of Ericsson's efforts released in >> I2ND chapter to Uniroma, to cope with the work they would take in >> charge for adoption of the Android Flow Monitoring GE (including the >> possible use of one functionality of this GE for CDI own purposes). >> Moreover, I found that they don't have efforts allocated in the >> Integration WP, which is rather strange as they contribute to develop >> and make available components of two GEs of I2ND chapter. I would >> propose to allocate a (limited) effort on this too. >> >> Can we manage this already at this stage, so that effort would be >> moved directly to Uniroma? >> >> 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:* marted? 19 marzo 2013 09:58 >> *A:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu >> *Cc:* subsidies at tid.es; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> *Oggetto:* Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next >> Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW >> >> Hi all, >> >> Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of >> the previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill >> with a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you >> only need to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond >> back to these email with an email with your confirmation/comments >> together with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about >> starting date filled regarding WPs you lead. >> >> Apologizes for the inconvenience. >> >> 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a >> new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were >> pending (some of which pending since July last year !). >> >> In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the >> 2nd reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment >> 4 ready by end of April if not earlier. >> >> Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes >> already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in >> amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for >> amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. >> Changes are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment >> 4)". Please also check whether you agree with final picture of >> PMs allocation among tasks of the WP you lead. >> >> We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for >> you to double-check everything is fine, so *we will ask for your >> confirmation before tomorrow noon*. >> >> We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet >> right afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs >> reallocation, despite the official amendment of the DoW may >> require more time. >> >> 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) 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 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> 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'ambienteRispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se >> non ? necessario.* >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manieri at eng.it Tue Mar 19 15:05:00 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:05:00 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] URGENT: Adjustment of efforts in next Amendment of the FI-WARE DoW In-Reply-To: <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> References: <51482688.2070907@tid.es> <5148287A.2070708@tid.es> Message-ID: <5148708C.2070100@eng.it> Dear Juanjo, could you please explain the rational for the reallocation of the full EAB effort in WP9 to UPM, while an internal agreement discussed with Juan Quemada and agreed by WP9 partners was slight different? Thanks in advance for a prompt and formal reply, A. Il 19/03/2013 09:57, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto: > Hi all, > > Please use the new spreadsheet attached to this email instead of the > previous one. We have included a new column we ask you to fill with > a date from which reporting of costs should be accepted (you only need > to fill the white cells in that column). Please respond back to > these email with an email with your confirmation/comments together > with a version of the spreadsheet with this info about starting date > filled regarding WPs you lead. > > Apologizes for the inconvenience. > > 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) 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 19/03/13 09:49, Juanjo Hierro wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new >> amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending >> (some of which pending since July last year !). >> >> In order to avoid any issue regarding reporting of costs in the 2nd >> reporting period (2nd year) we will try to get the amendment 4 ready >> by end of April if not earlier. >> >> Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes >> already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in >> amendment 4. You should check whether the proposed changes for >> amendment 4 matches your recollection on pending changes. Changes >> are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". Please >> also check whether you agree with final picture of PMs allocation >> among tasks of the WP you lead. >> >> We believe that the spreadsheet should make it rather easy for you >> to double-check everything is fine, so *we will ask for your >> confirmation before tomorrow noon*. >> >> We will send an email to our PO with this summary spreadsheet right >> afterwards so that he can formally acknowledge the PMs reallocation, >> despite the official amendment of the DoW may require more time. >> >> 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) 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 21 10:09:41 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:09:41 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Final check regarding PMs/funding reallocation in FI-WARE to be implemented in amendment 4 of the DoW Message-ID: <514ACE55.10502@tid.es> Hi all, First of all thanks very much for your responses to our request to verify the spreadsheet summarizing the PMs reallocation to be implemented in amendment 4 of the FI-WARE contract. Please find enclosed the final spreadsheet where we believe that, to the best of our knowledge, we have implemented all the comments we have received from you. We will send it to our PO this afternoon, right after our PCC confcall unless objections are raised. Please take your time to make a final 5-minute check that everything is ok. If you reply to this message, please don't forget to add subsidies at tid.es in copy Thanks and 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v27.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 257997 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manieri at eng.it Thu Mar 21 11:13:34 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:13:34 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware] Final check regarding PMs/funding reallocation in FI-WARE to be implemented in amendment 4 of the DoW In-Reply-To: <514ACE55.10502@tid.es> References: <514ACE55.10502@tid.es> Message-ID: <514ADD4E.8040106@eng.it> Dear Juanjo, the reallocation foreseen in the spreedsheet is ok for ENG (either in WP9 and WP10). thanks A. Il 21/03/2013 10:09, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto: > Hi all, > > First of all thanks very much for your responses to our request to > verify the spreadsheet summarizing the PMs reallocation to be > implemented in amendment 4 of the FI-WARE contract. > > Please find enclosed the final spreadsheet where we believe that, to > the best of our knowledge, we have implemented all the comments we have > received from you. > > We will send it to our PO this afternoon, right after our PCC > confcall unless objections are raised. Please take your time to make a > final 5-minute check that everything is ok. > > If you reply to this message, please don't forget to add > subsidies at tid.es in copy > > Thanks and 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) 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 > > > ________________________________ > > 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 mailing list > Fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Thu Mar 21 11:55:49 2013 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:55:49 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! In-Reply-To: <514481BD.20209@tid.es> References: <514481BD.20209@tid.es> Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C5575B5DF@PALLENE.office.hd> Juanjo, all, following the acceptance from IBM, SAP, NSN, Thales and others, the newly proposed Governance Version 7 is in general okay for NEC. We like to clarify: (a) Transparency of Communication and Information exchanges (b) Wording Issue in Section 1 (c) Decision making Process in FI-Ware on DoW changes ad (a) Transparency of Discussion and Information flows between governance bodies. There is no exact wording on how it is made sure that all the advises, recommendations, answers, discussions and agreements are communicated well to all FI-PPP Project Participants. I think it was said several times the spirit must be an open, efficient and transparent process. Good: SB --> PrC --> FI-PPP Project Participants It is clearly said that "decision to be made" need to be communicated from SB to PrC to project participants and back. That information flow is clear and defined. project partner are tasked to respond in time. Good: Working Groups Results will be made available through the portal. Request: explicitly make discussion and intermediate results open and accessible Unclear: - communication of recommendation from EIB, AdvB to PC/SB and feedback - agendas and minutes of EIB, AdvB, SB, WG: are they public to the participants ? ( I assume that is the spirit, but a clarification in the text would be very, very welcome) - progress reports and other assessments - decisions and recommendations from the AB: should be obvious that this goes to the complete program (architecture decisions !), but currently only the reporting to SB and PC is formalized. Summary: Either a sentence that "In general, all communication shall be available to all participants" or an explicit bullet point in each role description which information is public available. ad (b) A clarification in the last paragraph of section 1: "In this structure, the strategic advisory roles and operational tasks of FI-PPP are clearly separated clarifying, decision-making roles and interfaces. This division also help in positioning contact points for third party users and developers notably in phase 3." In my opinion, the comma between "... clarifying, decision-making ..." is wrong, leading to easy misunderstandings. IMHO, the separation must be between - advising roles - decision-make roles - interface roles Suggfest to reformulate the sentence. Sorry, to be picky. ad (C) According to my reading of the current DoW, the PCC is not the right body to make a final decision on a DoW change. That is a task of the GA. I assume your mail to the GA is asking for approval and saying who does not vote is implicitly approving it. Please be aware that NEC object to this kind of implicit decision making. DoW changes need explicit approvals. Please be aware that there is a problem that the PCC mailinglist is not open to all and that I have not seen agendas or minutes of PCC discussion (maybe they exist on the portal ?) Kind regards - Ern? From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Samstag, 16. M?rz 2013 15:29 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don't know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Mar 21 12:20:29 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:20:29 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! In-Reply-To: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C5575B5DF@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <514481BD.20209@tid.es> <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C5575B5DF@PALLENE.office.hd> Message-ID: <2169_1363864830_514AECFE_2169_147_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0BC9F6@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all, Proposed governance version 7 is OK for Ornage. BR THierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ernoe Kovacs Envoy? : jeudi 21 mars 2013 11:56 ? : Juanjo Hierro; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Juanjo, all, following the acceptance from IBM, SAP, NSN, Thales and others, the newly proposed Governance Version 7 is in general okay for NEC. We like to clarify: (a) Transparency of Communication and Information exchanges (b) Wording Issue in Section 1 (c) Decision making Process in FI-Ware on DoW changes ad (a) Transparency of Discussion and Information flows between governance bodies. There is no exact wording on how it is made sure that all the advises, recommendations, answers, discussions and agreements are communicated well to all FI-PPP Project Participants. I think it was said several times the spirit must be an open, efficient and transparent process. Good: SB --> PrC --> FI-PPP Project Participants It is clearly said that "decision to be made" need to be communicated from SB to PrC to project participants and back. That information flow is clear and defined. project partner are tasked to respond in time. Good: Working Groups Results will be made available through the portal. Request: explicitly make discussion and intermediate results open and accessible Unclear: - communication of recommendation from EIB, AdvB to PC/SB and feedback - agendas and minutes of EIB, AdvB, SB, WG: are they public to the participants ? ( I assume that is the spirit, but a clarification in the text would be very, very welcome) - progress reports and other assessments - decisions and recommendations from the AB: should be obvious that this goes to the complete program (architecture decisions !), but currently only the reporting to SB and PC is formalized. Summary: Either a sentence that "In general, all communication shall be available to all participants" or an explicit bullet point in each role description which information is public available. ad (b) A clarification in the last paragraph of section 1: "In this structure, the strategic advisory roles and operational tasks of FI-PPP are clearly separated clarifying, decision-making roles and interfaces. This division also help in positioning contact points for third party users and developers notably in phase 3." In my opinion, the comma between "... clarifying, decision-making ..." is wrong, leading to easy misunderstandings. IMHO, the separation must be between - advising roles - decision-make roles - interface roles Suggfest to reformulate the sentence. Sorry, to be picky. ad (C) According to my reading of the current DoW, the PCC is not the right body to make a final decision on a DoW change. That is a task of the GA. I assume your mail to the GA is asking for approval and saying who does not vote is implicitly approving it. Please be aware that NEC object to this kind of implicit decision making. DoW changes need explicit approvals. Please be aware that there is a problem that the PCC mailinglist is not open to all and that I have not seen agendas or minutes of PCC discussion (maybe they exist on the portal ?) Kind regards - Ern? From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Samstag, 16. M?rz 2013 15:29 To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Dear all, As anticipated, here you have a final version of the FI-PPP governance model where, imho, all remaining comments agreed at FI-WARE level have been taken into consideration. From Telefonica's perspective, this governance model is perfectly ok to us. Thursday 21 next week, there will be a FI-WARE PCC meeting where a final decision regarding the request to incorporate this governance model in the next DoW amendment will be taken. Unless we hear about any objection on your side, we will assume that incorporation of this version of the governance model as part of the next DoW amendment is ok for you. Have a nice weekend, -- 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 Fi-PPP Phase 2 Governance Version 7 !! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:39:36 +0000 From: David Kennedy To: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu , Hierro Sureda Juan Jos? , lgg at tid.es , livdo at tid.es , Federico ?lvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) , Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) CC: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com , michael.stollberg at sap.com , rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com , Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl , elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de , armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de , claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de , laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de , SUZANNE at il.ibm.com , Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu , beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com , Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de , GALITL at il.ibm.com , irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com , jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com , lucile.casenave at cea.fr , Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com , robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com , Sarrazin Robert , patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com , Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu , Fatelnig Peter , Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu , 'Macmahon, Tara' , fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de , kathrin.schweppe at sap.com HI all, Further to the last comments received from SAP and FI-Ware I have produced a version 7. Our time is up for this action and projects were supposed to have finalised their DOWs yesterday, I believe it addresses all the concerns presented and represents a good compromise on the original ambition to have highlights of the interactions between the projects captured in the DoW and not having direct conflict with the CA. I honestly don't know if the commission are still open to accept this version but please take this conversation with your project officers. 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 21 13:50:08 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC confcall Message-ID: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FEFC10@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> When: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:00 PM-4:00 PM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris Where: DCS01 S00P B61 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 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: 2710 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 21 13:51:50 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:51:50 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Bridge for the call Message-ID: <514B0266.4050004@tid.es> Hi all, I forgot to provide the details for the bridge of the PCC call. We'll use the same powwownow bridge as with the WPLs/WPAs confcalls. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 21 13:58:49 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:58:49 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Link to shared minutes Message-ID: <514B0409.6090108@tid.es> Hi all, The link for the shared minutes for our confcall today: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FS2eWDwXMXf6ueqTcBFI_oBbcem22acQ92mS5DEOP3A/edit?usp=sharing 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Mar 21 23:51:04 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:51:04 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content In-Reply-To: <59812FF1E287AD4497054F3D2B92B26A03917406@S-DC-ESTH04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <59812FF1E287AD4497054F3D2B92B26A03917406@S-DC-ESTH04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <514B8ED8.5010504@tid.es> Dear Ragnar and members of the Commission, FI-WARE agrees to incorporate text of version 7 of the FI-PPP Governance Model in a next amendment of the DoW. 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 21/03/13 17:57, Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, Further to the revision of the "FI-PPP Management Organisation Model" we hereby confirm that the attached text (version 7) should be included in your DoW, instead of version 6 as indicated in the previous e-mail. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:36 PM To: 'maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it'; 'Anastasius Gavras'; 'pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com'; 'fiona.williams at ericsson.com'; 'sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl'; 'sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com' Cc: 'jimenez at tid.es'; 'jhierro at tid.es'; 'Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi)'; ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; ''Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es)'; FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, As confirmed in our e-mail following the "Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013", here is the additional information regarding common texts/content for inclusion in your Description of Work (DoW). 1) FI-PPP Governance The attached FI-PPP Management Organisation Model text should be included in your DoW. It corresponds to the version 6 of the document that was already circulated to you previously. << File: FI PPP Governance Model_20130312.docx >> 2) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) CONCORD made a presentation (attached) on the FI-PPP KPI framework at the workshop. << File: Proposed FI PPP-Programme-level KPIs.ppt >> 2a) Project-level: You should include the relevant project-level KPIs from this presentation in your DoW. (NB. It is of course expected that you also include other KPIs that are specific to your project). 2b) Programme-level: Note that CONCORD will establish an evaluation process for the programme-level KPIs and you should therefore ensure that the relevant programme level KPIs and their measuring are foreseen in your DoW, so that your project can contribute accordingly to CONCORD and meet the programme-level objectives. 3) FI-PPP programme communications In addition to your participation in the "Communication and Dissemination Working Group" your DoW's list of dissemination events/activities should include the yearly FI-PPP programme-level event that, as agreed in the workshop, should in principle take place in March 2014 and March 2015. (Venue and exact date will be defined by the working group later). 4) Resources for programme level activities You must explicitly allocate financial and human resources to fulfil your role at the FI-PPP programme level. We request each project to budget for a minimum of 24 person-months per year and 150.000 EURO for the total project duration for FI-PPP programme activities. Finally, when it comes to "Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP" we have already presented this and circulated information about it. We expect this dimension to be fully represented in your DoW. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work and bring the negotiations to a swift close as the formal deadline of 28 February has passed. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:30 PM To: maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it; Anastasius Gavras; pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com; fiona.williams at ericsson.com; sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl; sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com Cc: jimenez at tid.es; jhierro at tid.es; Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi); ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; 'Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es); FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013 - Follow-up Dear Project Co-ordinator of FI-PPP phase II proposal, We would like to thank you and all the project representatives for the active contributions during the workshop. During the finalisation of the FI-PPP Call 2 projects' negotiations we are focusing on the commitment towards the FI-PPP Programme success and strong collaboration implemented by the following actions: * New governance structure reflected by a common text in the DoW. * Quantitative KPIs (notably on the usage of the GEs and the trials): not only for Use Case Trial projects (UC) but also for FI-WARE, XIFI and Concord. KPIs on the external view of the PPP (e.g. success stories) should also be included. * Explicit identification of the GEs that UCs will / intend to use + a validation strategy. * Milestones: * M6: discussion of the architecture approaches of the different UCs vis-?-vis FI-WARE and XIFI --> see draft standard text below. * M6 (at the latest): Information from phase 2 projects about what phase 3 projects may use, a full description, and under what conditions (both inside and outside the PPP). * M6: UCs to provide requirements on infrastructure needs, to be consolidated by XIFI in M6. This does not have to be a UC deliverable per se, but at least the commitment to give this input must be stated. * M15: availability of platforms. The UCs should be aligned along a M15 milestone. --> Concord to make a first draft of a PPP wide GANTT chart reflecting this. * Common articulated approach on FI-PPP programme communications. * Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP reflected by a common text in DoW. * All projects must allocate explicitly financial and human resources to fulfil their roles at the FI-PPP programme level: Governance, management, communications, etc. Amounts for the costs, as well as person-months. * There should be clear Terms & Conditions for usage of GEs and specific enablers with specific deliverables at month 6 and month 15 (within and beyond the FI-PPP). * Public deliverables on Commission websites: --> see standard text below. * Kick-off meetings should be announced to EC and include presentation on the FI-PPP Programme dimension (EC to present when possible). FI-WARE should also be invited to present its role within the FI-PPP. * Participation in FI-PPP Phase 2 Architecture Week. Elements of draft standard texts for DoW, in addition to the ones already provided in relation to the workshop: 1. "The project aims to use the Generic Enablers (and Specific Enablers) in the list / picture below. A draft architecture including Generic Enablers and Specific Enablers will be defined at month X (latest: M6). This architecture will be discussed within the Architecture Board with FI-WARE and XIFI, and suggestions by FI-WARE and XIFI architects will be taken into account for the specification of a revised architecture at month Y." 2. "Deliverables marked as ?public (PU)? in the Dissemination Level column in the Deliverable List table above will be made available to the general public via the project?s web site, within a month after their formal approval in a review report. The deliverables will include a copyright notice. Upon request by the Commission, public deliverables will be made available to the Commission for publication on a Commission web site, with a copyright notice as indicated by the consortium. Such deliverables will be made available to the Commission in a publishable format." The European Commission services will provide the common texts on: * The new governance structure, * The programme related KPIs, * Openness and cooperation towards other initiatives. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom 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: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 21 23:53:37 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:53:37 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content In-Reply-To: <59812FF1E287AD4497054F3D2B92B26A03917406@S-DC-ESTH04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <59812FF1E287AD4497054F3D2B92B26A03917406@S-DC-ESTH04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <514B8F71.2000808@tid.es> Version 7 of the new FI-PPP governance model, this time officially from the EC. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:57:19 +0000 From: To: , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, Further to the revision of the "FI-PPP Management Organisation Model" we hereby confirm that the attached text (version 7) should be included in your DoW, instead of version 6 as indicated in the previous e-mail. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:36 PM To: 'maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it'; 'Anastasius Gavras'; 'pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com'; 'fiona.williams at ericsson.com'; 'sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl'; 'sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com' Cc: 'jimenez at tid.es'; 'jhierro at tid.es'; 'Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi)'; ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; ''Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es)'; FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, As confirmed in our e-mail following the "Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013", here is the additional information regarding common texts/content for inclusion in your Description of Work (DoW). 1) FI-PPP Governance The attached FI-PPP Management Organisation Model text should be included in your DoW. It corresponds to the version 6 of the document that was already circulated to you previously. << File: FI PPP Governance Model_20130312.docx >> 2) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) CONCORD made a presentation (attached) on the FI-PPP KPI framework at the workshop. << File: Proposed FI PPP-Programme-level KPIs.ppt >> 2a) Project-level: You should include the relevant project-level KPIs from this presentation in your DoW. (NB. It is of course expected that you also include other KPIs that are specific to your project). 2b) Programme-level: Note that CONCORD will establish an evaluation process for the programme-level KPIs and you should therefore ensure that the relevant programme level KPIs and their measuring are foreseen in your DoW, so that your project can contribute accordingly to CONCORD and meet the programme-level objectives. 3) FI-PPP programme communications In addition to your participation in the "Communication and Dissemination Working Group" your DoW's list of dissemination events/activities should include the yearly FI-PPP programme-level event that, as agreed in the workshop, should in principle take place in March 2014 and March 2015. (Venue and exact date will be defined by the working group later). 4) Resources for programme level activities You must explicitly allocate financial and human resources to fulfil your role at the FI-PPP programme level. We request each project to budget for a minimum of 24 person-months per year and 150.000 EURO for the total project duration for FI-PPP programme activities. Finally, when it comes to "Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP" we have already presented this and circulated information about it. We expect this dimension to be fully represented in your DoW. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work and bring the negotiations to a swift close as the formal deadline of 28 February has passed. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:30 PM To: maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it; Anastasius Gavras; pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com; fiona.williams at ericsson.com; sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl; sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com Cc: jimenez at tid.es; jhierro at tid.es; Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi); ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; 'Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es); FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013 - Follow-up Dear Project Co-ordinator of FI-PPP phase II proposal, We would like to thank you and all the project representatives for the active contributions during the workshop. During the finalisation of the FI-PPP Call 2 projects' negotiations we are focusing on the commitment towards the FI-PPP Programme success and strong collaboration implemented by the following actions: * New governance structure reflected by a common text in the DoW. * Quantitative KPIs (notably on the usage of the GEs and the trials): not only for Use Case Trial projects (UC) but also for FI-WARE, XIFI and Concord. KPIs on the external view of the PPP (e.g. success stories) should also be included. * Explicit identification of the GEs that UCs will / intend to use + a validation strategy. * Milestones: * M6: discussion of the architecture approaches of the different UCs vis-?-vis FI-WARE and XIFI --> see draft standard text below. * M6 (at the latest): Information from phase 2 projects about what phase 3 projects may use, a full description, and under what conditions (both inside and outside the PPP). * M6: UCs to provide requirements on infrastructure needs, to be consolidated by XIFI in M6. This does not have to be a UC deliverable per se, but at least the commitment to give this input must be stated. * M15: availability of platforms. The UCs should be aligned along a M15 milestone. --> Concord to make a first draft of a PPP wide GANTT chart reflecting this. * Common articulated approach on FI-PPP programme communications. * Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP reflected by a common text in DoW. * All projects must allocate explicitly financial and human resources to fulfil their roles at the FI-PPP programme level: Governance, management, communications, etc. Amounts for the costs, as well as person-months. * There should be clear Terms & Conditions for usage of GEs and specific enablers with specific deliverables at month 6 and month 15 (within and beyond the FI-PPP). * Public deliverables on Commission websites: --> see standard text below. * Kick-off meetings should be announced to EC and include presentation on the FI-PPP Programme dimension (EC to present when possible). FI-WARE should also be invited to present its role within the FI-PPP. * Participation in FI-PPP Phase 2 Architecture Week. Elements of draft standard texts for DoW, in addition to the ones already provided in relation to the workshop: 1. "The project aims to use the Generic Enablers (and Specific Enablers) in the list / picture below. A draft architecture including Generic Enablers and Specific Enablers will be defined at month X (latest: M6). This architecture will be discussed within the Architecture Board with FI-WARE and XIFI, and suggestions by FI-WARE and XIFI architects will be taken into account for the specification of a revised architecture at month Y." 2. "Deliverables marked as ?public (PU)? in the Dissemination Level column in the Deliverable List table above will be made available to the general public via the project?s web site, within a month after their formal approval in a review report. The deliverables will include a copyright notice. Upon request by the Commission, public deliverables will be made available to the Commission for publication on a Commission web site, with a copyright notice as indicated by the consortium. Such deliverables will be made available to the Commission in a publishable format." The European Commission services will provide the common texts on: * The new governance structure, * The programme related KPIs, * Openness and cooperation towards other initiatives. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom 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: FI PPP Governance Model_20130321.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 282459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 21 23:56:46 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:56:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content In-Reply-To: <514B8ED8.5010504@tid.es> References: <514B8ED8.5010504@tid.es> Message-ID: <514B902E.1050109@tid.es> Dear partners, As agreed, we have communicated to the EC that it's ok to include contents of the version 7 of the governance model in a next amendment of the FI-WARE DoW. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:51:04 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu, Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu, Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu, "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" Dear Ragnar and members of the Commission, FI-WARE agrees to incorporate text of version 7 of the FI-PPP Governance Model in a next amendment of the DoW. 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 21/03/13 17:57, Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, Further to the revision of the "FI-PPP Management Organisation Model" we hereby confirm that the attached text (version 7) should be included in your DoW, instead of version 6 as indicated in the previous e-mail. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:36 PM To: 'maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it'; 'Anastasius Gavras'; 'pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com'; 'fiona.williams at ericsson.com'; 'sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl'; 'sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com' Cc: 'jimenez at tid.es'; 'jhierro at tid.es'; 'Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi)'; ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; ''Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es)'; FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiations - Common texts/content Dear Project Co-ordinator of a FI-PPP phase II proposal, As confirmed in our e-mail following the "Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013", here is the additional information regarding common texts/content for inclusion in your Description of Work (DoW). 1) FI-PPP Governance The attached FI-PPP Management Organisation Model text should be included in your DoW. It corresponds to the version 6 of the document that was already circulated to you previously. << File: FI PPP Governance Model_20130312.docx >> 2) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) CONCORD made a presentation (attached) on the FI-PPP KPI framework at the workshop. << File: Proposed FI PPP-Programme-level KPIs.ppt >> 2a) Project-level: You should include the relevant project-level KPIs from this presentation in your DoW. (NB. It is of course expected that you also include other KPIs that are specific to your project). 2b) Programme-level: Note that CONCORD will establish an evaluation process for the programme-level KPIs and you should therefore ensure that the relevant programme level KPIs and their measuring are foreseen in your DoW, so that your project can contribute accordingly to CONCORD and meet the programme-level objectives. 3) FI-PPP programme communications In addition to your participation in the "Communication and Dissemination Working Group" your DoW's list of dissemination events/activities should include the yearly FI-PPP programme-level event that, as agreed in the workshop, should in principle take place in March 2014 and March 2015. (Venue and exact date will be defined by the working group later). 4) Resources for programme level activities You must explicitly allocate financial and human resources to fulfil your role at the FI-PPP programme level. We request each project to budget for a minimum of 24 person-months per year and 150.000 EURO for the total project duration for FI-PPP programme activities. Finally, when it comes to "Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP" we have already presented this and circulated information about it. We expect this dimension to be fully represented in your DoW. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work and bring the negotiations to a swift close as the formal deadline of 28 February has passed. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom at ec.europa.eu _____________________________________________ From: BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:30 PM To: maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it; Anastasius Gavras; pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com; fiona.williams at ericsson.com; sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl; sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com Cc: jimenez at tid.es; jhierro at tid.es; Turkama Petra (petra.turkama at aalto.fi); ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi; 'Federico Alvarez' (federico.alvarez at upm.es); FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); ANTON GARCIA Maria Concepcion (CNECT); VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT) Subject: Future Internet PPP Call 2 Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013 - Follow-up Dear Project Co-ordinator of FI-PPP phase II proposal, We would like to thank you and all the project representatives for the active contributions during the workshop. During the finalisation of the FI-PPP Call 2 projects' negotiations we are focusing on the commitment towards the FI-PPP Programme success and strong collaboration implemented by the following actions: * New governance structure reflected by a common text in the DoW. * Quantitative KPIs (notably on the usage of the GEs and the trials): not only for Use Case Trial projects (UC) but also for FI-WARE, XIFI and Concord. KPIs on the external view of the PPP (e.g. success stories) should also be included. * Explicit identification of the GEs that UCs will / intend to use + a validation strategy. * Milestones: * M6: discussion of the architecture approaches of the different UCs vis-?-vis FI-WARE and XIFI --> see draft standard text below. * M6 (at the latest): Information from phase 2 projects about what phase 3 projects may use, a full description, and under what conditions (both inside and outside the PPP). * M6: UCs to provide requirements on infrastructure needs, to be consolidated by XIFI in M6. This does not have to be a UC deliverable per se, but at least the commitment to give this input must be stated. * M15: availability of platforms. The UCs should be aligned along a M15 milestone. --> Concord to make a first draft of a PPP wide GANTT chart reflecting this. * Common articulated approach on FI-PPP programme communications. * Openness and cooperation beyond the FI-PPP reflected by a common text in DoW. * All projects must allocate explicitly financial and human resources to fulfil their roles at the FI-PPP programme level: Governance, management, communications, etc. Amounts for the costs, as well as person-months. * There should be clear Terms & Conditions for usage of GEs and specific enablers with specific deliverables at month 6 and month 15 (within and beyond the FI-PPP). * Public deliverables on Commission websites: --> see standard text below. * Kick-off meetings should be announced to EC and include presentation on the FI-PPP Programme dimension (EC to present when possible). FI-WARE should also be invited to present its role within the FI-PPP. * Participation in FI-PPP Phase 2 Architecture Week. Elements of draft standard texts for DoW, in addition to the ones already provided in relation to the workshop: 1. "The project aims to use the Generic Enablers (and Specific Enablers) in the list / picture below. A draft architecture including Generic Enablers and Specific Enablers will be defined at month X (latest: M6). This architecture will be discussed within the Architecture Board with FI-WARE and XIFI, and suggestions by FI-WARE and XIFI architects will be taken into account for the specification of a revised architecture at month Y." 2. "Deliverables marked as ?public (PU)? in the Dissemination Level column in the Deliverable List table above will be made available to the general public via the project?s web site, within a month after their formal approval in a review report. The deliverables will include a copyright notice. Upon request by the Commission, public deliverables will be made available to the Commission for publication on a Commission web site, with a copyright notice as indicated by the consortium. Such deliverables will be made available to the Commission in a publishable format." The European Commission services will provide the common texts on: * The new governance structure, * The programme related KPIs, * Openness and cooperation towards other initiatives. We would like to kindly ask you to implement these actions in your Description of Work. Kind regards, On behalf of the EC FI-PPP team, Ragnar Bergstr?m Project Officer __________________________ EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit E3 - Net Innovation Office BU25 3/104, B-1049 Bruxelles Tel: +32(0)2.295.64.15 e-mail: ragnar.bergstrom 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: From jhierro at tid.es Fri Mar 22 07:58:18 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:58:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Some cities to take into account during the selection of cities to connect to the FI-WARE OIL Message-ID: <514C010A.4010408@tid.es> Dear Stefano, Telefonica would like to propose a number of cities in Spain that we would like to be considered during the process of selection of smart cities to be connected to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (OIL) Here it goes the list with a brief rationale why we consider it is important to consider their candidatures: * Santander * Santander has shown a great commitment regarding the FI-PPP and FI-WARE in particular. A PoC dealing with smart applications based on FI-WARE GEs and relying on experimental facilities (sensors) deployed on the city of Santander was developed as part of the Outsmart project in phase 1. Despite the project was not selected for continuation, they are making a lot of effort since January in order to make this PoC become a stable demo that could be made available on the FI-WARE OIL. * We now they are more than willing to offer their experimental facility, build during the last years thanks to the SMARTSantander FIRE project, and make it available through the FI-WARE OIL. That would mean putting a lot of sensors of a real city available for experiments. * SMARTSantander is one of the best ranked FIRE projects. This would help us to create a connection between the FI-PPP and FIRE programs which we believe would be well perceived by the EC. * Santander is playing a rather relevant role in the RECI initiative in Spain which is trying to establish a common strategy to be followed regarding smart cities in Spain. Their involvement will be key in promoting FI-WARE as platform on which rely the definition of the platform of future smart cities. * Malaga * They have already disseminated their commitment with FI-WARE as basis for the experimentation of Smart City applications. This commitment is shown in several communications to the press media (I can provide links if needed, although you have to read them in spanish :-) * There will be the opportunity to activate EU regional funds (FEDER) around their involvement. Therefore, the right stimulus/funding now, accompanied by visible results through the FI-WARE OIL (visibility in FI-WARE OIL launch events, hackatons, etc) may activate major investments from them in the future. * They have already committed to organize a number of events in Spain, attracting SMEs, around FI-WARE and the FI-WARE OIL to promote both and push SMEs and Web entrepreneurs to consider development of applications based on FI-WARE. * We believe that they have some sensor networks or open data that can be made available for experimentation in the FI-WARE OIL, although this requires further investigation. We guess they are not so in a good position as Santander but rather committed to make efforts. * They have already engaged with FI-WARE because part of the money put on the table (1 Million Euro) for purchasing the infrastructure which will expand the current FI-WARE Testbed and will be necessary to run the FI-WARE OIL. Giving them the privilege to connect to the FI-WARE OIL and announce the city as one of the smart cities connected to the FI-WARE OIL sounds like a fair compesation for all what they are putting on the table without any compesation so far. Indeed, there is a "delicate" issue I hope that can be understood ... If they were not selected, that would lead to a very compromising situation: imagine launching hackatons/developer contents to select applications that can exploit experimental facilities from smart cities connected to the FI-WARE OIL ... can we imagine how they will feel watching that it is only other cities who get the credit and promotion derived from these activities and this is for applications that will ultimately run on the datacenters they have put the money for ? It would be an absolute disaster. * Sevilla: * Same reasons as Malaga. Regarding contacts, I guess that the best choice with the city of Santander would be to contact Luis Mu?oz whom you perfectly know. I'm not so sure for Sevilla and M?laga but I will find out and get back to you. Hope this is enough. Otherwise, please let me know. 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) 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 ________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 22 09:08:03 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:08:03 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation In-Reply-To: <514C10EB.8000003@tid.es> References: <514C10EB.8000003@tid.es> Message-ID: <514C1163.1010808@tid.es> Dear members of the PCC, Please find enclosed the email send to Arian regarding amendment 4. I will later send an email to the WPLs/WPAs reminding them about the need to provide the precise date from which consumption of PMs should be considered. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:06:03 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu CC: FI-WARE project EC mailbox , "subsidies at tid.es" , Miguel Carrillo , Javier de Pedro Sanchez Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. 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 ________________________________ 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-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 summary for the EC.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 257405 bytes Desc: not available URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Fri Mar 22 12:12:01 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:12:01 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] SAP member in the GA mailing List of FI-WARE Message-ID: Dear all, because of the fact the Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz takes care about all the PCC & GA related discussions and decisions it would be a good idea to put him on the GA Mailing-List. If you have added Burkhard to the mailing List, you can wipe out my name. Please send out a short notification after the execution of this task to Burkhard and me. Thank you very much for your support. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Next Business and Technology SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Fri Mar 22 14:17:19 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:17:19 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-PPP Phase 2 CONCORD in Phase 2 In-Reply-To: <9112BC7A3E903648A78842961080989425CE01@EXMDB04.org.aalto.fi> References: <9112BC7A3E903648A78842961080989425CE01@EXMDB04.org.aalto.fi> Message-ID: <514C59DF.4020909@tid.es> Dear all, FYI. Official announcement about changes in CONCORD which hopefully will improve overall performance of FI-PPP collaboration activities. You may notice that there is a reference to a FI-PPP Programme Week in June. To the best of my knowledge, preparation of this event had never been discussed with us because, among other things, if it had been, I had immediately raised an issue on behalf of FI-WARE because June is definitively not the best dates (overlapping with our 2nd year official review and the delivery of the FI-WARE 2nd Release). I have already raised this to CONCORD representatives and expect a rectification. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 CONCORD in Phase 2 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:17:07 +0000 From: Lakaniemi Ilkka To: ab at fi-ppp.eu , sb at fi-ppp.eu , FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu CC: concord-consortium at fi-ppp.eu Dear all, As we are all getting ready to launch FI-PPP in Phase 2, I wanted to inform you of the following major changes taking place within CONCORD for Phase 2 activities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in contact with me on any CONCORD-related matter. The below listed persons can also present further details on the current and coming activities of their related working areas. We are also happy to contribute and present at your coming events I will also be the main contact point for any on-going action points for CONCORD. I will report on their progress in my following messages. * As indicated at the negotiation workshop, CONCORD has revisited its objectives, tools and structures to reflect the Fi-PPP Phase 2 activities. This means an overhaul of the CONCORD consortium and its ways of working to serve the FI-PPP at all levels. * First, CONCORD now consists of five (5) member organizations: Aalto University, Eurescom, Zurcher Hochschule fur Angewandte Wissenschaft (ZHAW), iMinds and European Network of Living Labs (ENOLL). Each of these organizations is now positioned to best perform within CONCORD and for FI-PPP. * Second, the following persons are responsible for managing, leading and facilitating CONCORD tasks for FI-PPP: * FI-PPP Boards: * Steering Board - David Kennedy (Eurescom), * Architecture Board - Thomas Bohnert (ZHAW), * Executive Industry Board - David Kennedy (Eurescom) * Advisory Board - Petra Turkama (Aalto) * FI-PPP Working Groups (WGs): * Communications and Dissemination - Milon Gupta (Eurescom) * Policy - Hans Schaffers (Aalto) * Business Models and Exploitation - Pieter Ballon (iMinds) * Standardisation - Thomas Bohnert (ZHAW) * Third, CONCORD toolbox for FI-PPP, including IT tools, is being reformatted for FI-PPP information continuity purposes, due to some software license changes and to prepare for coming needs. A separate, detailed message will follow tomorrow about the CONCORD toolbox changes. Contact persons for details on IT changes will be: Juha Salo (Aalto: juha.salo at aalto.fi) and Klaas-Pieter Vlieg (Eurescom: vlieg at eurescom.eu). * Fourth, CONCORD is arranging and planning for FI-PPP-wide events, FI-PPP Programme Weeks, to build the community and enable information sharing. The first meeting is being scheduled for 17-20 June in Berlin. I trust that with the above changes gaining speed and momentum, CONCORD will be ideally positioned to fulfill its role for FI-PPP. Do not hesitate to contact me for any details and stay tuned for more information on the above topics. Kind regards, Ilkka Lakaniemi +358 - 50-434 62 65 ________________________________ 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 mcp at tid.es Fri Mar 22 14:35:28 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:35:28 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] SAP member in the GA mailing List of FI-WARE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <514C5E20.7090709@tid.es> Axel, Done. Current situation Axel Fasse - just on the PCC list Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz - on both lists Have a nice weekend Miguel El 22/03/2013 12:12, Fasse, Axel escribi?: Dear all, because of the fact the Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz takes care about all the PCC & GA related discussions and decisions it would be a good idea to put him on the GA Mailing-List. If you have added Burkhard to the mailing List, you can wipe out my name. Please send out a short notification after the execution of this task to Burkhard and me. Thank you very much for your support. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Next Business and Technology SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 Sun Mar 24 13:19:36 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:19:36 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Fwd: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation In-Reply-To: <514C1163.1010808@tid.es> References: <514C1163.1010808@tid.es> Message-ID: <514EEF58.7040708@tid.es> Dear WPLs/WPAs, Find below a copy of the mail sent to Arian regarding amendment 4. I want to remind you that there was an AP on all WPLs about filling the column with the date from which justification of costs associated to new allocated PMs will apply. Despite we have told Arian that "Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities", we have to be prepared in case he asks for a more precise date, case by case. Note that I have attached two spreadsheets to this message. The one named "FI-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 summary for the EC.xlsx" is the only one submitted to the EC. The second one named "FI-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v28.xlsx" is the new one in which you have to fill the column "Start date from which PMs are being consumed" (only cells in white). Please note that you have to submit this info before Wednesday 27th, noon. Otherwise, we assume that you agree that PMs will start to be consumed from the first day of the month at which the new amendment will be be approved. I copy the FI-WARE General Assembly so that individual partners to whom PMs will be allocated can follow-up this with the corresponding WPLs. 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:06:03 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu CC: FI-WARE project EC mailbox , "subsidies at tid.es" , Miguel Carrillo , Javier de Pedro Sanchez Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. 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 ________________________________ 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-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 summary for the EC.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 257405 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE effort-budget-funding - Amendment 4 v28.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 258170 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Mar 28 08:56:38 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:56:38 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: PiCANETs project endorsement In-Reply-To: <010b01ce298e$ba82eb40$2f88c1c0$@dis.uniroma1.it> References: <010b01ce298e$ba82eb40$2f88c1c0$@dis.uniroma1.it> Message-ID: <5153F7B6.7000209@tid.es> FYI. I guess we should sooner or later discuss how to deal in general with request for endorsements ... 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) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PiCANETs project endorsement Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:26:58 +0100 From: Vincenzo Suraci To: Dear Juanjo, I'm coordinating a STREP project proposal on Backhauling (11th ICT Call, closing on the 16th of April). According to the Digital Agenda for Europe, mobile internet traffic is doubling every year. By 2015 25 billion wirelessly connected devices globally are expected, doubling up to 50 billion by 2021. Mobile data traffic will increase 12-fold between 2012 and 2018; accordingly data traffic on smartphones will increase 14 times by 2018. The sole gains on access technologies (e.g. LTE-A) cannot guarantee a fast, reconfigurable and seamless deployment of mobile cellular networks. For these reasons PiCANETs project aims to design, plan and control jointly the access and the backhaul wireless technologies as a unified network (namely a PiCANET) by designing, developing and validating an integrated set of unprecedented technologies, protocols and tools. The project objective is to achieve a breakthrough mobile ultra-high wireless capacity of 10Gbps (x10 spectrum efficiency and capacity) with 1/4 of energy consumption compared to conventional solutions. In order to measure the effectiveness of PiCANETs, three distinct scenarios will be setup in real field trials: * Indoor/Big Events Scenario - 100 users, 100 Mbps down-link each, 100 m2 * Outdoor urban scenario - 100 users, 100 Mbps down-link each, 900 m2 * Outdoor rural scenario - 100 users, 100 Mbps down-link each, 1 Km2. To achieve these challenging objectives the following results will be investigated: * Manage the access and backhaul radio technologies as a unique mobile network; * Enable a seamless and unified programmability of Future Internet access/backhaul network; * Release open Generic Enablers to design, plan and control the Future Internet access/backhaul network; * Develop a toolset to facilitate the deployment and the operation of the Future Internet access/backhaul network. A PiCANET will be composed of two logical layers: a virtualization layer and a management layer. The former layer acts as an adapter between the underlying technology-dependent backhaul/access networks and the technology-neutral management layer. It exposes a set of open APIs to the management layer, while interacting with otherwise proprietary, not-interoperable, heterogeneous backhaul/access technologies. It allows network operator to concurrently manage different technologies as one Software Defined Network, even envisaging several physical networks managed by different operators as a shared resource. The latter layer provides a set of functionalities being accessible by network operator, as well as by third parties. It hosts sophisticated mathematical models and advanced solution algorithms in order to ensure long-term optimal planning as well as short-term control of the backhaul/access network. The developed technologies will be proposed as new standards for reconfigurable and programmable radio and networks, mainly to 3GPP E-UTRA, ETSI Reconfigurable Radio and ONF OpenFlow. The project tools will be developed to be compliant with the FI-WARE WP7 S3C and NetIC Generic Enablers Open Specifications. If possible, the PiCANETs consortium would like to publish them in the FI-WARE Catalogue to maximize the exploitation benefits of the PPP Future Internet initiative in Europe and globally. This makes the FI-WARE initiative even greater, embracing the results of a variety of FP7 projects and thus being the European lighthouse for the Future internet. I strongly believe that an endorsement letter from the FI-WARE project coordinator can be beneficial for PiCANETs and opens the doors to the development of new ICT products and services in the mobile Broadband markets that are "FI-WARE inside". I kindly ask to you to evaluate this idea and let me know if there is interest to support that kind of initiative. In any case I thanks you for reading the e-mail and apologize for the long wording. Best Regards, Vincenzo Suraci _____________________________________ [sapienza_logo] Dr. Vincenzo Suraci "Sapienza" - Universit? di Roma Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Automatica e Gestionale (DIAG) Via Ariosto, 25 - 00185 Rome - Italy Phone +39 06 77274 037 Fax +39 06 77274 033 Mobile +39 340 156 2258 Mail suraci at dis.uniroma1.it Web Site http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~suraci ________________________________ 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: 1649 bytes Desc: not available URL: