Hi Nuria, just one further comment: should we say ‘better to cancel’ or ‘better to postpone’ the event in the second sentence? I believe we should say postpone (reschedule), as in the remaining part of the sentence we argument about the advantages of rescheduling the event later. BR Pier Da: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria [mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net] Inviato: mercoledì 26 febbraio 2014 10:05 A: stefano de panfilis; Juanjo Hierro Cc: Garino Pierangelo; fiware-pcc Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] R: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2_REACTION FROM FI-WARE ASAP!! Hi Stefano, all, Thanks for your inputs. Based on all your answers this is the e-mail that I will send right now (see notes below) Dear Milon, I regret to say that our feeling is that your proposal goes against the principles that should guide the re-design of the program IMHO. Those principles were very well summarized by Peter Fatelnig in his mail of February 18. By the way, we wonder whether you still propose keeping a fee of 285€ to attendees which we also find deterrent. Under the current circumstances and given the short time to settle down all the disparate views on the design of the program, we wonder whether it would be better to cancel the event. Looking for other dates and a design of the event which a) doesn't require to ask for a high fee to attendees and b) can be organized activating the network of contacts of phase 3 projects, look like a good rationale you can give to people who had already registered. Best regards, Note; be aware that some of the statements mentioned by Stefano cannot be used: responsibility regarding the success of ECFI is shared by all projects. We are not in the OC, but because we did not want (remember that many months ago I offered this possibility to all of you). Then, many aspects have been discussed in the DWG. I must say that my position has always been the same in that group and it is coherent. The reason of time cannot be used. They started to prepare this event long time ago (you can simply check my first e-mails on the subject)- In fact, what they argue is that FI-WARE reacts too late and that is the reason why they cannot change the agenda on the first day. FI-WARE participation was based on a workshop organized by the CoC submitted in December. The cancellation of this workshop let the project in a stand-by situation without a clear position in the event. Our proposal now could help in giving a clear focus and message to ECFI, but was only partially accepted. Thanks to all for your contributions. From: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:11 AM To: Juanjo Hierro Cc: Garino Pierangelo; De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria; fiware-pcc Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2_REACTION FROM FI-WARE ASAP!! dear juanjo and all, sorry for this late reply, but i'm catching-up emails only over the nigth the free time that i have from other obligations .... btw, although i understand the carefulness of pier the sentence juanjo is proposing put on our shoulder somehow the fact we are making difficulties in the organisation of the event. as nuria correctly say we are NOT in the OC so the failure of the vent is their failure .... my position is that we should suggest them to cancel the event for many reasons but in a firm way. my senetnce therefore is: "We believe that an event of startegical importance like the ECFI should and have to be has to be organised very well in advance. At this point the event has no clear and agreed message to convey nor atrget audience (what and for whom), is late in dissemination (an event like this should be announced a year before), and does not have yet a clear agenda and named invited speakers (all of this should be know about 6 months in advance). Under the above outlined circumstances we wonder whether it would be better to cancel the event. We will be happy to cooperate and being involved in: a) looking for other dates, the current dates just before the elections will not assure the rigth political attendance and attention both at mp and commission levels b) designin and event which doesn't require to ask for a high fee to attendees c) well activating the network of contacts of phase 3 projects whioch in turn looks like a good rationale you can give to people who had already registered." ciao, stefano 2014-02-25 10:39 GMT+01:00 Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>>: May be a way to smooth the second sentence would be to say (see change in green): Under the current circumstances and given the short time to settle down all the disparate views on the design of the program, we wonder whether it would be better to cancel the event. Looking for another dates and a design of the event which a) doesn't require to ask for a high fee to attendees and b) can be organized activating the network of contacts of phase 3 projects, look like a good rationale you can give to people who had already registered. We would be giving our opinion (better to cancel the event and try to organize it better with more time) but still leaving the decision on their side. But, anyways, I'm fine with whatever is agreed. (note: the fact that I'm encouraging to cancel the event is because I rather believe that it is the best for the program, not just FI-WARE, it's not because I love the idea of canceling it) 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<http://twitter.com/JuanjoHierro> FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect FI-PPP Architecture Board chairman 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 25/02/14 10:14, Garino Pierangelo wrote: Hi All, I’m fully aligned with the opinion of Nuria, and I personally share the strong position expressed by Juanjo’s mail, but expressing such a radical position in an official way would probably create many negative effects around FI-WARE. I am therefore in favour keeping the first sentence, but not the second one (‘Under the current circumstances…’). As an extreme attempt, I’d rather ask to reconsider and take (more) into account the comments by Peter: I assume this an event strongly requested by EC, therefore I’d expect the comments by EC representatives be addressed in prioritized way (assuming there is *one* EC position…). BR Pier Da: 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] Per conto di De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria Inviato: martedì 25 febbraio 2014 09:37 A: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-pcc Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2_REACTION FROM FI-WARE ASAP!! Hi al, The e-mail proposed by Juanjo is very radical even though I agree with it. It will put FI-WARE is a position that is not politically correct and we will get many criticisms. As a result I would like to get consensus from the FI-WARE PCC members to send that message. As “Nuria” my position is exactly the same than the one explained by Juanjo, but since I will be the person in charge of sending this kind of message (that includes “Under the current circumstances and given the short time to settle down all the disparate views on the design of the program, we would propose to cancel the event. “) and I will create many enemies I want to be 100% sure that this is the position shared by all partners in the PCC. React this very morning PLEASE!!! Nuria From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:00 AM To: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria; fiware-pcc Cc: CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Re: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2_REACTION FROM FI-WARE ASAP!! Dear Nuria, I believe I had already explained my position in this respect. I believe that moving a general presentation on FI-WARE, FI-Ops and FI-Lab to Day 2 does not work and, I would add more, goes against the approach that Peter Fatelning asked CONCORD to follow for the event (see text marked in red of the long thread of emails linked to this discussion that was attached by Nuria). Actually, he literally said that the two following points had to be taken into account in the re-design of the event: 3) A key message is: "The FI-PPP delivers, the product lines FI-Ware, FI-Lab and FI-Ops are there and work today", celebrate the early 'usages' by phase 2 projects and the hackathons. ... 5) A FI-Ware, FI-Lab and FI-Ops – mini-session should be added to the opening plenary (What is are the products, where are we in the programme, show 1-2 working examples…). Not more than 25 minutes. His advice in this respect, which was complementary to ours, has simply been ignored. I frankly do not understand why introducing a slot of 20 minutes (which, btw, was initially taken into consideration because they asked us about a keynote speech by our CEO, Carlos Domingo) is so difficult ... BTW ... it doesn't need to be me actually who make that speech. It could be some top executive of some of the partners if it looks more suitable. On the other hand, I don't see that there has been any reaction to the point of dropping the fee of 285€. This was labeled as "deterrent" by Peter Fatelnig. Bottom line, I would answer the following way: === Dear Milon, I regret to say that our feeling is that your proposal goes against the principles that should guide the re-design of the program IMHO. Those principles were very well summarized by Peter Fatelnig in his mail of February 18. By the way, we wonder whether you still propose keeping a fee of 285€ to attendees which we also find deterrent. Under the current circumstances and given the short time to settle down all the disparate views on the design of the program, we would propose to cancel the event. Looking for another dates and a design of the event which a) doesn't require to ask for a high fee to attendees and b) can be organized activating the network of contacts of phase 3 projects, look like a good rationale you can give to people who had already registered. Best regards, === Hope it helps, -- 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<http://twitter.com/JuanjoHierro> FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect FI-PPP Architecture Board chairman 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 24/02/14 18:11, De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria wrote: Hi Juanjo, PCC members, Let me update you about the current status of FI-WARE positioning in ECFI, the event that the FI PPP is organizing in April (Brussels). An urgent decision has to be made by us; therefore, read this e-mail and tell me which message I should transmit on behalf of the project. • Initial proposal by FI-WARE was based on a session organized by the Chamber of Commerce (targeting CoC and Committee of the regions). We sent these contributions before Xmas • Then, FI-WARE decided to withdraw from this option because of the conditions of ECFI (limited attendees, a fee of al almost 300 euro that was incompatible with the objectives of the workshop proposed by the CoC, too short sessions (we had 1,5h instead of 5h…). • Based on this decision FI-WARE disappeared from the programme, and we came later to the organizing committee with a new proposal • As some of you may know, in this group people are not very flexible, and therefore, despite our willingness to improve the current programme and perception of the event, it is being quite difficult to go forward with our plans. Some days ago both the EC and Ilka (FI PPP chair) agreed on giving FI-WARE/FI-LAB/FIOPS more visibility and based on that FI-WARE pushed for a presentation in the plenary session of day 1. • I drafted the descriptions based on my discussions with Juanjo and previous background (I attached the last version sent to the DWG). The proposal includes the aforementioned presentation in the plenary as well as a parallel workshop. • While the workshop has been accepted by the OC, they only provide us the option of a presentation on Day 2 (see decision by the OC sent to me today) • I need to react from the FI-WARE side with a common view (and not a personal opinion). I should do this ASAP Please, see rational of the OC below and tell me what is your position as member of the FI-WARE PCC. Juanjo, your views as coordinator are essential. Best regards, Nuria -----Original Message----- From: Milon Gupta [mailto:gupta at eurescom.eu] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 5:28 PM To: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter; 'ECFI-1org at fi-ppp.eu<mailto:ECFI-1org at fi-ppp.eu>' Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2 Dear Nuria, Thank you very much for your updated session proposals. The ECFI-1 organising committee (OC) agreed to most of what you proposed. The description of your parallel session on “Open APIs and Open Minds" is already online at http://www.ecfi.eu/programme-brussels2014/session-10/ Concerning your request to have a 30-min plenary presentation on "FI-WARE, FI-Ops and FI-Lab", the participating OC members (including representatives from FINESCE, FIspace, FI-CONTENT, and XIFI) unanimously agreed after a comprehensive discussion of the different aspects that it would not be feasible/beneficial to shorten the lunch break on day 1, as you had suggested, in order to insert this session. The lunch break on day 1 is a crucial time for participants to explore the exhibition. Shortening the lunch break from 90 min to 60 min would seriously reduce the interaction at the booths/demos, which is one of the important aspects of the event. The second reason is that the OC considered it more appropriate to dedicate a full hour (instead of 30 min) of plenary time to an important topic like " FI-WARE, FI-Ops and FI-Lab", which is only feasible on day 2. In addition, the longer duration will also make it possible to have a XIFI representative present FI-OPs and have some time for Q&A. Thus, I ask for your understanding that the OC scheduled the proposed plenary session for the morning of day 2. The draft description is online at http://www.ecfi.eu/session-9/ In order to finalise the session agenda, I would like to ask you to coordinate with Monique from XIFI. In addition to organising these 2 sessions, I would ask for FI-WARE's support in actively promoting ECFI Brussels over the next few weeks, in order to attract a good number of participants to our joint FI-PPP event. Best regards, Milon From: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria [mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net] Sent: Freitag, 21. Februar 2014 08:40 To: Milon Gupta Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2 I am experiencing problems with my e-mail today and apparently this message did not go out. I try again. From: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:17 AM To: 'Milon Gupta' Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI_v2 Importance: High Hi all, Since Monday morning I will be flying I decided to anticipate the new version of the FI-WARE contributions. Find attached version 2 of the proposal that includes the following changes wrt v1. • I have changed the title of the plenary presentation to reflect the three brands more explicitly and it was initially proposed by Juanjo • I have added the three logos; still they should not only appear in the session description but in the overall programme • I have added agenda and speakers to the session (the parallel workshop) keeping the explanations to guide attendees about the content (of course now I have to confirm speakers) Be aware that in previous discussions both the EC (Peter) and Ilka agreed to have a FI-WARE/FI-LABS/FI-OPS presentation at the beginning of the programme (beginning of the conference means day 1). Checking the existing programme I think this could be well accommodated by delaying lunch 30 minutes, which seems reasonable because it would still be typical Brussels lunch time. Let me know if something else from my side is needed. Best regards, Nuria -----Original Message----- From: Milon Gupta [mailto:gupta at eurescom.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:42 PM To: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Dear Nuria, That is perfectly fine with me. Draft agendas with session descriptions and speakers to be confirmed are all I expect by Monday morning. If you are available I could call you Monday afternoon after the OC call to discuss the next steps. Best regards, Milon -----Original Message----- From: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria [mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net] Sent: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2014 18:33 To: Milon Gupta Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Thank you Milon. I will try to progress on that. I can draft agendas for the sessions with potential speakers. Be aware that I cannot confirm names in 2 days because those people will need to check the possibility to travel on those dates. In some cases I already initiated the process (for example, I asked Juanjo to check the availability of some of the Campus Party winners). So, I will provide what I can on Monday and we go on working on it from that point. Best regards, Nuria -----Original Message----- From: Milon Gupta [mailto:gupta at eurescom.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:19 PM To: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy; Fatelnig Peter Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Dear Nuria, At the last DWG conference call there was general agreement that the FI-WARE project should organise a plenary session and a more in-depth parallel session on presenting FI-WARE, FI-LAB and FI-OPs - for the FI-OPs part in collaboration with XIFI. The ensuing DWG e-mail discussion according to my understanding showed that your original proposal had neglected the FI-OPs part, and I think you had agreed to work together with the XIFI people to work on a revised version of your original proposal. Your draft proposal has been lacking necessary details like envisaged speakers and, thus, needs to be revised anyhow. It would be good, if you could send a revised draft to the DWG by Monday morning, 24 February, 11:00, so we could consider it in the ECFI-1 OC call. Just to make this clear: after the agreement in the DWG, the ECFI-1 OC will not discuss whether to have a plenary session and a parallel session organised by FI-WARE or not, but only how and when it should happen. This requires, of course, that FI-WARE delivers the required agendas, including speakers, for both sessions soon. Without preempting the ECFI-1 OC call discussion, I daresay that accommodating your wish to have the FI-WARE organised plenary session in the morning of day 1 is hardly feasible, as this would require un-inviting high-level speakers who add value to the conference programme and who took months to secure. Thus, my proposal to the ECFI-1 OC, which I had already explained at the last DWG call, has been to start day 2 with the FI-WARE organised plenary session. In addition to the conference programme, the FI-WARE project will have plenty of opportunities for presenting FI-WARE, FI-LAB and FI-OPs in the exhibition. Please send me the description of the FI-WARE stand at your earliest convenience. In addition, I would appreciate, if FI-WARE could mobilise its PR forces to promote the event. As you can see, there is a lot of actions you can take right now - there is absolutely no reason for you to wait for outcomes of the next organising committee call. Best regards, Milon From: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria [mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net] Sent: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2014 10:58 To: Milon Gupta; Fatelnig Peter Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Hi all, Thank you very much for the open exchange of messages. I think the position of FI-WARE is clear: • I welcome the agreement by the EC and Ilka on the plenary session showing that the three brands FI-WARE/FI-LAB/FI-OPS are up and running → I understand that for both the plenary session and the parallel workshop we have to wait until the Organizing committee agrees on that and approves the contents formally. Be aware that I will not start preparing anything until I get confirmation • Then, involvement of Ogilvy can happen, but their assignment of resources is very much planned, and as I pointed out, some works can be done but would require CONCORD to pay unless we talk about minor works. For example, some support to design could be given, but if we want new material to be created or to provide media coverage of the event, this would have to be covered (as said, we have assigned this kind of resources to external events that can have more impact at commercial level). If this is not feasible you can always rely on a lot of things that have been done. FI-WARE has elaborated quite a lot of material for different events: we have the generic ones and the ones focused on smart cities (brochures, posters…). Additionally we count on a channel fed with lots of videos recorded in different events (UK; Lithuania, Spain, Brazil…). Tell me if you finally fix a teleconference or if you want that I trigger any additional action. Best regards, Nuria From: Milon Gupta [mailto:gupta at eurescom.eu] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:43 PM To: Fatelnig Peter Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia; De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; David Kennedy Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Dear Peter, Thank you for your suggestions, which I forwarded yesterday for consideration to the other members of the ECFI-1 organising committee (OC), which I am chairing. The ECFI-1 OC was created about half a year ago as a temporary group within the DWG with the mandate to plan and implement the event. Decision procedures are organised transparently in order to ensure participation and commitment by a maximum number of projects. The ECFI-1 OC will have a conference call next week. I will update you on any decisions agreed by the ECFI-1 at that meeting as well as any other relevant developments in regard to the event. In the meantime, I would appreciate any support the EC and the FI-WARE project could provide in promoting the ECFI event towards potential participants. Due to other commitments, I am not available for a conference call this week. Maybe we could have a chat next week after the ECFI-1 OC conference call, where I could update you on the latest status. Best regards, Milon From: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu] Sent: Dienstag, 18. Februar 2014 10:48 To: nuria.delama at atos.net<mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net>; Lakaniem Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José; Milon Gupta; David Kennedy Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Berström Ragnar; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>; Maria-Concepcion Anton Garcia Subject: RE: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Importance: High Dear colleagues, Thanks for the frank discussion on how best to position the event and the operational aspects. Here – in a staccato approach – what I believe would be the way forward: 1) Objective: Pitching the Future Internet PPP outcomes (FI-Ware, FI-Lab and FI-Ops) and what phase 3 holds in terms of opportunities to the Brussels microcosm. 2) The fee of 285 Euro is a deterrent. Can it be lowered to 99 Euro (and reimburse those who have paid)? Can it be waived altogether? 3) A key message is: "The FI-PPP delivers, the product lines FI-Ware, FI-Lab and FI-Ops are there and work today", celebrate the early 'usages' by phase 2 projects and the hackathons. 4) Key points for the debate could be: What are the challenges to make FI-PPP outcomes sustainable? What are the challenges the fast pace of technological changes pose for FI-Ware? What are non-technical challenges? What needs to be done to make the FI-PPP a success? 5) A FI-Ware, FI-Lab and FI-Ops – mini-session should be added to the opening plenary (What is are the products, where are we in the programme, show 1-2 working examples…). Not more than 25 minutes. 6) The input material for the conference needs to be catchy. No point of showing half-baked, technical speak in a format which is not appealing. Again the key message is: The FI-PPP delivers! Then one should expand on the 'products' i.e. FI-Ware, FI-Lab and FI-Ops and then on the two –pronged take-up actions. 1) The P2 domain specific large scale trials and the 16 FI Accelerators of P3. I think it is indispensable that FI-WARE connection to Ogilvy is used 110% to produce publishable material before the end of the months (admittedly the website is nice). 7) I would like to write to a number of Commission service to raise interest and invite to attend (I will also ask Mario to write to his peers), including Member states representatives. 8) Equally I would expect that the companies in FI-WARE and the P2 trials will activate their representations in Brussels and the associations they are member of (e.g. DigitalEurope). Also the ETPs, Nessi, Net!Works (and the new 5GPPP), FIRE, Smart City EIP should be pushed as multipliers of the message. Final question: • While hearing all views, the event now needs somebody who makes the decision, fast and firm, in order to move actions. Who will be that driver where all inputs can be focussed and actions is organised? • Can we have another phone call towards the end of the week? • Nuria, would it be possible to activate Ogilvy already now? I wanted to be sharp on the above, of course in the end there is flexibility everywhere as we go along. Best, Peter From: De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria [mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:39 PM To: FATELNIG Peter (CNECT) Cc: Lakaniemi Ilkka (ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi<mailto:ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>); Juanjo Hierro; Milon Gupta; David Kennedy (kennedy at eurescom.eu<mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>) Subject: FI-WARE proposals for ECFI Hi Peter, all, Thanks for the discussion we had yesterday. I have come back to some of my colleagues, including the Ogilvy team to check the way we could support the ECFI event. We are of course glad to help. As said during the teleconference, FI-WARE is going through its last phase and we are running out of resources; that is why we had to assign some of the remaining resources to those activities where the ROI seems to be higher and in our case these are the ones that target developers and people outside the research community. Nevertheless, there is still some time to work on that. Let me suggest the following actions. • I attach the FI-WARE proposal for the programme. This includes a presentation in the plenary plus a parallel session where some of the concepts will be extended. The initial presentation will be made by Juanjo, but for the parallel session our idea is to count not only on internal people, but also “FI-WARE” ambassadors, including cities that have connected to FI-WARE as well as some of the winners of the hackathons (for example from the last edition of Campus Party held in Brazil). Of course names will be confirmed once the session is approved and assuming the do not have to pay the fee (I also sent it to the DWG for consideration by the OC) • FI-WARE has also confirmed its presence in the exhibition (still details to be sent) It was not easy to confirm this because, as you know, we were working until recently on the basis of the session with the Chamber of Commerce. Assuming that these changes are implemented in the programme then, we could get more engaged in the design and visibility of the event. As said before, FI-WARE can provide suggestions for improvement, but if more time intensive work is needed, then we would need to cover the costs of Ogilvy. This would be specifically required for this type of activities: - new designs of flyer, stands, ... - Material production (for example, if online development is required..) - Coverage of the event if we want to create professional media material (and a team from Ogilvy has to travel there). We did this in ICT event, Smart City Expo, Campus Party London and Campus Party Brazil with very good results The remaining budget has been assigned to the next Campus party, some important political events in Spain and the one we have to organize with the Chambers of Commerce. We are in discussions with FI-CONTENT on how to do it for CeBIT precisely because of limited resources. However, FI-WARE puts at the disposal of anyone in the PPP all the material already created. Links to videos have been distributed and I do not think there is anything against using them on the ECFI website to make it more dynamic, including statements about the FI PPP from relevant people. • A lot of audiovisual material in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6tA5RY6g04&list=UUbXNGF_hhvKpXdQ1KxzX2HQ Let us know your views. Thanks in advance, Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission M +34 680645692<tel:%2B34%20680645692> T +34 91214 9321<tel:%2B34%2091214%209321> F +34 91754 3252<tel:%2B34%2091754%203252> nuria.delama at atos.net<mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net> Albarracín 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu<http://www.atosresearch.eu> es.atos.net<http://es.atos.net> IMPORTANT - MAIL ADDRESS CHANGE - From now on, please use only mail address nuria.delama at atos.net<mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net> The former @atosresearch.eu<http://atosresearch.eu> address will be cancelled soon ________________________________ 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 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. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario. ________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20140226/c27f9f11/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy