1. Status summary of the ad-hoc discussions 13th of July 2012 oneM2M call

2. Working Procedures The last version of the WP is attached The document still present several proposed changes to be discussed, but is pretty stable, apart the following contentious issues: 1.The weight in terms of voting rights of Partner Type 1 versus partner Type 2: –Two views: »Keep the voting rights the same for all the partners to give a better perception to the verticals »Keep 50% of the voting power in the hand of Partners Type 1 2.CR process: –Two views: »Re-use the same well known CR process of 3GPP (and others) »Define a different process more oriented to the collaborative working tools

3. Working Procedures 3.Working agreement process: –Re-use the same CR process of 3GPP (and others) or not 4.Quorum: –How to calculate the quorum for voting in in particular the explicit abstention case 5.Voting list: count only the physical attendance or include the electronic participation –Two views: »electronic participation is complex to be defined and verified and removes the participation filter, allowing manipulation voting rights, better to exclude it from the acquisition of voting rights »Electronic participation makes easier the vertical engagement, better to include it in the acquisition of voting rights

4. Funding and Budget evaluation model The ad hoc did not progress further on these issues Current version of the founding model is proposed as input for the SC together with the meeting assumptions. The ad hoc believes that decision on meeting hosting was a precondition to progress the work. The ad hoc also discussed at the last call a TIA proposal to simplify the evaluation, this proposal is posted to this plenary for discussion Further documentation for budget evaluation has been proposed by TIA and ETSI in past meetings, but we did not see a convergence, so contribution is invited at the SC (hopefully pre-agreed between the parties).

5. Documents Funding models: stable, option to be closed Draft working procedures: Stable, but some further work needed, contentious issues need to be solved. Meeting schedule is not agree but provides a good discussion ground. Documents already agreed by the plenary –Partnership Agreement –IPR annex –Secretariat functions All these documents are suggested to be posted to the SC as input. Additionally: Would be also good if TIA and ETSI would provide their input on the budget evaluations (hopefully harmonized