[Fiware-pcc] Governance Model FI PPP Rev. 6

[Juanjo Hierro]

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<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro

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

You can follow FI-WARE at:
  website:  http://www.fi-ware.eu
  facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
  twitter:  http://twitter.com/FIware
  linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932


On 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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130313/aa63aa7d/attachment.html>