1 / 7

Joint Legal/Participation Ad-Hoc

Joint Legal/Participation Ad-Hoc. 21 March 2012 Report. Ad-hoc Document Priority List. The combined ad-hoc has agreed to move its work product to the plenary for review and discussion ( M2MCons04_02 through 07 ) The most relevant is Partnership agreement

delu
Download Presentation

Joint Legal/Participation Ad-Hoc

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint Legal/Participation Ad-Hoc 21 March 2012 Report

  2. Ad-hoc Document Priority List • The combined ad-hoc has agreed to move its work product to the plenary for review and discussion (M2MCons04_02 through 07) • The most relevant is Partnership agreement • The level of secretariat has also reached a good stability • Additionally • Some documents moved out of the ad-hoc but should not be considered the agreed upon output of the committee (Financial Aspects) • Some documents are submitted to help discussion if time permits, to deal with complex issues that have not yet been resolved (Working Procedures)

  3. Partnership Agreement • Draft agreement is now presented to the plenary for continued and sustained work to finalize for presentation to SDO Boards, Counsels and stakeholders • Considered by the Ad-hoc to be the primary work product for focused effort by the plenary • The draft is stable (still few things to be refined), but contains a set of important issues that has been discussed deeply but no solution has been agreed.

  4. Unresolved Important Issues • Voting in oneM2M—simple summary • Three SDOs TIA, TTA and CCSA feel that one company one vote is the fairest way to proceed, the most legally insulating to the project, and best at giving voice to smaller companies while providing the greatest likelihood for success in attracting non-telecom companies and verticals • ETSI, ARIB/TTC and ATIS support one company one vote per SDO because this may be more attractive to companies and will not diminish the important contributions of the bigger companies to oneM2M

  5. Unresolved Important Issues • What is a company respect to the voting? (e.g. how we can define that a set of entities are considered for oneM2M “ a company”) • Partner Type 1 should be requested to be capable to publish Standards in the context oneM2M scope? • IPR policies and technical voting for Partner Type 2 and • IPR policy and technical voting for member that are associations

  6. Secretariat Services • Only one Unresolved issue is present, dealing with the Hosting support, where TIA and ETSI have a different view: • Should hosting provided by the Secretariat or • Directly by the members

  7. Funding, Working Procedures • Ad-hoc has made strides in producing good work to help the plenary discuss: • Funding of onem2m • Working procedures documents

More Related