Dear Stephano, Here some draft idea for feedback /only on WP6):: Concerning “WP6: Exploitation, dissemination, governance and legal structure of the platform still to be elaborated. The project is nearly halfway, but no clear vision has been developed on what results are to be exploited and how, or which legal and governance structure is appropriate. In particular, the capability of the platform to be sustained, develop and scale up without EU funding after the end of the project has not been demonstrated so far. Without a strong and well-defined added value offered by the platform proposed, and without an effective legal structure, sustainability plan and governance model, it is unlikely that the dissemination activities may successfully start, reach the expected goals and create a wide pan-European community of early adopters.”, we like to clarify that these observations are not linked to the topic under review. In particular, it seems that it was overlooked that all activated described here were planned to be started and had really started AFTER the first period, and thus are not in scope of this review. Thus, the observed description may be considered as a weakness of the project proposal, but cannot be considered as incorrect implementation requiring corrective actions. Concerning “#4 - Improvement and delivery of D6.1., D6.2, D6.3, D6.4. All the activities aimed at the definition of the governance and business model for exploiting the value of the TOKEN community shall be urgently addressed. In particular, through the due Deliverables, the team is invited to elaborate with high priority: A definition of what is to be exploited, i.e. the pilot platform for PA’s to develop use cases and pilot their solutions, or a fully operational DLT as a Service platform for Public Administrations. Related to this the value proposition(s);” we observe that this is already a high priority, and a Delivery D6.1 has not been delivered. As we had similar concerns that the reviewers, we did not submit in March, where we had only less than 3 months to work on it, but we decided to postpone until June”. We understand that we now should deliver in a way to address already the expressed concerns by October, and we agree with this new deadline for D6.1. Concerning the deadline for D6.3, is was planned to be: XXX, as thus is it infeasible to come up with a this report in October, i.e. more than one year earlier than the end of the work related to this Deliverable. We agree to give the reviewer an informed progress on the governance and decision related to the creation of an entity ensuring the sustainability after the project end. “An exploitation plan and vision, including approaches through which the project results will be sustained, developed, extended (services and functions) and scaled up (promotion and recruitment of new users/members); a credible business, cost and revenue model that can ensure the longer-term sustainability of the platform; the legal structure (profit or non-profit) and governance model which will: manage, maintain and exploit the platform and its technical evolution; regulate the co-existence of different operators and services; establish rules and criteria for other nodes to join the platform; ensure the compliance with exi9sting policies and regulation at national and international level. These tasks should be completed with no further delay, as they also constitute a pre-requisite for the success of the dissemination activities (WP5) and the engagement of new adopters. We agree to work on these items with high priority, even higher than planned, but we recall that the end of this activity is Dec 2023 according to our plans, so that it does not make sense to ask for accomplishment in Oct 2021. The request to deliver the results already in Oct 2021, may be a recommendation, but not a request for corrective action. To Stefano: Have the partner agreeing on sharing IRP and joint exploitation is indeed very hard before the mid of the project, where the value is still unclear. But it would be good to clarify this ASAP, and this indeed would improve the impact of WP5. For me the recommendation of the reviewer makes sense, and should follows, but the results depend on and the project partner, and I do not really know whether we promised this to succeed. You know this better than me as I arrived later in this project… Fi this was not promised, we should formally decline such a corrective action, and claim to work with best effort in this direction. However, this SHALL be decided BEFORE D6.3 can effectively progress… Establishing the context, i.e. knowing for which legal entities we shall build a governance model and who as the deciders is a key question to address and answer ASAP. Similar items for D6.2. and D6.4 but I will leave it to the respective delivery manage to explain the situation. Regards, Carlo ___________________________________________ Carlo Harpes Managing Director itrust consulting s.à r.l. Office building: 55, rue Gabriel Lippmann L-6947 Niederanven Phone: +352 2617 6212 (Reception) mobile: +352 621 45 19 45 Headquarter: 18, Steekaul; L-6831 Berbourg Web: www.itrust.lu<http://www.itrust.lu/> mailto: harpes at itrust.lu<mailto:harpes at itrust.lu> r.c. lux B123183 – VAT: LU 21534655 ___________________________________________ This message is restricted and may contain personal data; any unauthorized disclosure, use or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please notify the sender immediately. itrust consulting s.à r.l. does not accept liability for any errors, omissions or even commitment in the contents of this message, except where supported by a written agreement with the receiver. From: token-all-bounces at lists.fiware.org <token-all-bounces at lists.fiware.org> On Behalf Of Stefano De Panfilis Sent: 15 July 2021 13:09 To: token-all at lists.fiware.org Subject: [Token-all] corrective actions planning dear all, please find here attached the result of the review letter and the review report (draft). as you can see and as i hope already some of you have already spotted, there are several actions to implement as the review result was not so satisfactory. we already discussed the (informal) results during the dedicated ebm last 1st july. now we shall define a detailed corrective actions plan to address the recommendations and than to be followed in the second part of the project. since we need to send a formal answer with the plan by 31st july, we have to meet immediately. in the following a doodle poll for the next days. attendance on the most chosen date is mandatory with a representative from each organisation able to commit the organisations on the required changes as well as attendance of the wp leaders. https://doodle.com/poll/gmq7tiibapaabgh2?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link thank you for your continuous engagement in token, it is now even more needed! ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Operating Officer stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org<mailto:charlotte.kotterman at fiware.org> www.fiware.org<https://www.fiware.org/> Mob: +393357542567 Skype: depa01 twitter: depa01 [https://nexus.lab.fiware.org/repository/raw/public/images/twitter1.png]<https://twitter.com/fiware> [https://nexus.lab.fiware.org/repository/raw/public/images/fiware-logo2.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/token-all/attachments/20210716/953fcae6/attachment-0001.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy