Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft

["Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>]

In the f2f we discussed both e-service of court documents as well as
e-service of process although our wording of each process may not have been
correct.  We did identify that there is a difference between the two
processes.  Some felt that the process electronically could be handled the
same for both types of service.  We also recognized that we needed more
input from members such as yourself that represent the ABA on the issue.  It
is clear that a in scope of Blue includes a notification process which:
1) may be a convenience notice
2) may be e-service of court documents
3) may include e-service of process

The Notification scope is not complete and we look forward to your input to
help determine this.

Dallas

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
To: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
Cc: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee"
<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft


> The ABA Science and Technology Law Section has posted electronic service
> of process best practices which can be viewed on the ABA website at
> http://www.abanet.org/scitech/BestPracticesElectronicService.html
>
> Is blue intended to include e-service of process or just e-service of
> court documents?
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft
> > From: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
> > Date: Mon, September 27, 2004 12:33 pm
> > To: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee"
> > <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > It sounds reasonable to leave this issue on the table for now, and
perhaps bring it up at the next f2f.  My question is how often should we
update the charter.
> >
> > Dallas
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Smith, Christopher
> >   To: Winters, Roger ; Cabral, James E. ; Dallas Powell ; Electronic
Court Filing Technical Committeee
> >   Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:46 PM
> >   Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft
> >
> >
> >   I would also add to Roger's comment that Electronic Filing occurs in
many industries outside of the courts (IRS, banking, etc).  As a result, I
think we need to keep the word Court or Legal in the name somehow.  Speaking
from a court point of view,
> I also think the first priority of this group should be determining
standards for the flow of information into and out of the court for
electronic filing.
> >
> >   Nonetheless, California is facing the same issue that Dallas raises
that vendors are looking for guidelines for sharing information between
parties where the court is not involved.  I feel we should probably limit
Blue to what we decided last week i
> n Seattle but it would be helpful to document these ideas for post-Blue
work.  Are we tracking issues such as this for future versions of the
standards?
> >
> >   Christopher
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
> >     Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 11:35 AM
> >     To: 'Cabral, James E.'; Dallas Powell; Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committeee
> >     Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft
> >
> >
> >     I think it is important to retain the current name (which we have
had from the start) at least until after Blue has been completed. Reasons
include that there is a substantial court interest in this work and,
further, that the associated transacti
> ons envisioned, for example, in including e-service, relate to the
judicial process and court cases. Even transactions, such as discovery
exchange, which do not require direct involvement by the judge or clerk
(except to enforce rules), would not take p
> lace except for there being a court case involved.
> >
> >
> >
> >     I reserve the right to be persuaded otherwise, but I think that such
a change should be the product of deliberation and review - including
discussion at a face-to-face meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >     Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >     Roger Winters
> >
> >     Programs and Projects Manager
> >
> >     King County
> >     Department of Judicial Administration
> >
> >     516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
> >
> >     Seattle, Washington 98104
> >
> >     V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
> >
> >     roger.winters@metrokc.gov
> >
> >
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com]
> >     Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 10:11 AM
> >     To: Dallas Powell; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
> >     Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft
> >
> >
> >
> >     Given our decision to include e-service in the scope of Blue, this
makes sense to me.
> >
> >     Jim Cabral
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >
> >     From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
> >     Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 10:05 AM
> >     To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
> >     Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft
> >
> >     I would like throw out a change in naming from "Electronic Court
Filing Technical Committee" to "Electronic Filing Technical Committee" and
emphasize in our system as an environment for legal documents.  The intent
is ease the distinction between
> what we do and the data exchange environment for IJIS or attorney to
attorney for notification which may not always require a court to intervene
as was discussed in the f2f?
> >
> >
> >
> >     Dallas
> >
> >       ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >       From: John Greacen
> >
> >       To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
> >
> >       Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 5:45 PM
> >
> >       Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter revision second draft
> >
> >
> >
> >       I attach a "clean" version of the proposed revised Technical
Committee charter.  At the face to face in Seattle, the group present
proposed that specific tasks and deadlines not appear in the charter, but
rather be posted as a unique document an
> d updated on the TC web page.  Those items change too frequently to be
appropriate for a charter, with its lengthy amendment approval process -
which includes the OASIS Board of Directors.  I have made appropriate
changes to reflect that position.  I ha
> ve also clarified the discussion of the action taken by the COSCA/NACM
Joint Technology Committee on the four specifications developed by the TC's
predecessor organization.
> >
> >
> >
> >       I ask Robin Gibson to put this revised charter to a vote using
OASIS's Kavi system.  Please be aware that it must be approved by the OASIS
Board before it takes effect.
> >
> >
> >
> >       John M. Greacen
> >
> >       Greacen Associates, LLC
> >
> >       HCR 78, Box 23
> >
> >       Regina, New Mexico 87046
> >
> >       505-289-2164
> >
> >       505-289-2163 (fax)
> >
> >       505-780-1450 (cell)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >       To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
roster of the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.
>