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

[Schweppe, Kathrin]

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<blocked::mailto:nadine.heitmann at sap.com>
http://www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>
Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.




From: Fasse, Axel
Sent: Donnerstag, 7. März 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> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Donnerstag, 7. März 2013 12:21
To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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 <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

To:

David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>

CC:

Fatelnig Peter <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu"<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>, "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu"<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu> <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Lakaniemi Ilkka <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi><mailto:ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>


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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
* D055237 <axel.fasse at sap.com<mailto:axel.fasse at sap.com>>
* 0x23174579:0x48FFD1EC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130307/b76d9386/attachment.html>