In article 3.3. the last part of the first sentence refers to agreed time limits in different articles. As not all of these articles mention any time limit, I would suggest that this part (as agreed in respective articles) is deleted in any new version.

I agree with the comment relating to the Consortium Plan and Consortium Budget. Is it desirable and realistic to operate with such parallel documents to the Annex I? Please consider this for the next version.

IPR:
As an academic party (University) we find that the clause on dissemination could have been stronger and more detailed. Would you please consider including something about what steps would be approriate, according to Annex II.30.3? I would also suggest a maximum period of delay of [xx] (e.g. 60) days.

Co-authorship is also a relevant issue where I often see references made to the Vancouver convention http://www.icmje.org/. Have you had any discussions on this?

Concerning Background, I would like to mention that there might be a contractiction in option 1 under article 9.1 between the included and excluded background. Please consider this thoroughly.

Are we sure that that the Consortium Plan, as an update version of the Description of Work (Annex I) established by the Consortium, will be accepted by the E.C. for the project reviews, instead of the last version of the Annex I itself ?

If so, is there a process for the validation of any Consortium Plan amendment?

The versions published are all marked by CA for Collaborative Projects. Does it mean that a separate version for Capacities projects, more specifically, for the Research for SMEs (former CRAFT) will appear?

This is a test post to force the categories to appear in the left-hand menu.