RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for EC

Attached is the file with my comments. I favor the single model. It should be very simple, similar to the federal model. We have no responsibility to "prevent monkey business." If in the normal course of handling filings, someone is inclined to cheat in that way, they'll only be caught if we didn't perfectly prevent any form of cheating. That's more than we can hope to do...or want to do.

Service (secondary, not primary):

Is done (and can be routinely documented) when those parties (and interested others who signed up to be served electronically) are SENT the service notice (using the email addresses they gave to the court/clerk on signing up, or as since corrected - by them). There is no duty to be sure they receive the message, to check that they didn't change emails, to ensure that they didn't let their email boxes get too full, etc. No duty to make them read, understand, or do anything. Service is accomplished by sending the e-service message to the email address the court has for them.

Is yet to be done - by the FILER - based on receiving an automatically generated list from the court identifying a) parties who signed up for and who were therefore served electronically and b) parties who were not signed up and therefore must be served by "conventional means." Documentation of service by "conventional means" will be by "conventional means" too. That is, non-electronic.

I hope this helps.

Roger

Roger Winters

King County
Department of Judicial Administration

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator

and

Programs and Projects Manager

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906

roger.winters@metrokc.gov

From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:25 PM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

Everyone,

Thursday and Friday last week, John Greacen, Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, another MTG consultant, and I made a first attempt at developing a domain model and GJXDM mapping for electronic service. We wrote up a quick 3 page summary of the model and solicited initial feedback from some of the vendors actively participating on the TC with the expectation that we would send it to TC Monday. We did not expect the considerable response we received.

With the hope of coming to a consensus as a TC as soon as possible, I have summarized the comments over the last couple days and a proposed alternative model in the attached document. I have also attached a service cover sheet that Tybera is currently developing with Orange County, that Dallas graciously provided as an example.

As you will see from the main document, the main decision point is whether we need to support one or two service models. We request feedback from all TC members on this important issue as soon as possible so that we can finish up the specification. Please be sure to send your response to the entire list. If you can make your comments via "Track Changes" in Word, that would simplify our aggregation of the comments. I will leave it to the TC chairs to propose a decision making process.

<<Proposed Service Models for ECF3.doc>> <<NEF Draft 1 dated 04-20-05.doc>>
Thanks!

Jim Cabral

James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101-3201
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

legalxml-courtfiling message