RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Schedule for IPR Transition or TC closure

["Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

Hello everyone,

  I'm not sure where the communication has run afoul -- I detailed the changes that needed to be made in my email to the
TC on 16 Jan.
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/email/archives/200701/msg00002.html

I received a new copy from Dr. Leff on Monday of this week; I have forwarded a copy of that message to the TC mail list
so that all can remain apprised of the current situation. 

I have asked for a copy of the schemas referenced in the specification - the TC Process requires any and all schemas,
DTDs, etc. be provided separately as plain text files. I have also asked for the name(s) of the editor(s) to be placed
on the cover sheet - this is standard OASIS practice; acknowledgements are a separate section maintained typically at
the end of the specification itself. I believe in this case the person doing the actual editing is Dr. Leff, but there
may be other names that should be listed there as well. 

I have not yet had the opportunity to review the newly submitted file, but it appears that it is still without editorial
attribution and I am still without the necessary schemas/DTDs.

Regards,

Mary   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dazza Greenwood [mailto:dazza@media.mit.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:03 PM
> To: James Bryce Clark
> Cc: Patrick Gannon; Mary McRae; pmeyer@elkera.com.au; Dave 
> Marvit; Dr. Laurence Leff; Leff; zoran@deontik.com
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Schedule for IPR 
> Transition or TC closure
> 
> Hi Jamie,
>  
> Good to hear from you and I'm glad to see you're keeping the 
> process on track for OASIS.  Thanks for the reminder on the 
> deadlines.  Our TC does not intend to continue to exist after 
> publishing our 1.0 specification, and we intend to have that 
> published within the shortest possible time line, not 
> extending to April 15th of this year.  Unfortunately, it 
> seems to me that there is a failure to communicate by OASIS 
> which, if uncorrected soon, may risk our TC running afoul of 
> the IP transition deadline.  We're puzzled as to why OASIS 
> has not published our draft specification for the initial 60 
> day comment period already.  We do not expect to make any 
> further substantive changes to this draft, instead publishing 
> the draft ASAP after the comment period and leaving more 
> substantive revisions for future work by a future TC or 
> taking other appropriate action.  We do expect that OASIS 
> will either publish our specification for public comment 
> immediately or will respond to my e-mail to Mary McCrae from 
> over a week ago asking OASIS to "please let us know exactly 
> what blocking issues remain to be resolved before our 
> specification can be published for comment?" (footnote 1).  
> As of today, I have not had a reply to that request and Dr. 
> Leff, acting as our scribe, has told us he is uncertain how 
> to bring the process of back and forth with OASIS to a close.  
>  
> We delivered our specification in draft form in December to 
> OASIS and any further delay by OASIS would be problematic for 
> the TC and tantamount to OASIS causing this TC to abandon the 
> IP terms I and other worked hard to negotiate in good faith 
> with OASIS as a condition of merging our non-profit into 
> yours.  Ultimately it would not serve the interests of OASIS 
> in facilitating standards if OASIS were to be the cause of 
> our TC to go out of existence before OASIS published our work 
> under the IP terms we have agreed.  It is personally 
> important to me that any specification published by this TC 
> be under the existing IP and LegalXML IP statement that was 
> so carefully negotiated between LegalXML Inc and OASIS-OPEN 
> for precisely this purpose.  The existing IP is exactly what 
> I signed up for when I contributed by efforts toward this 
> goal and that I negotiated and voted for as a member of the 
> Board of LegalXML Inc.  Given the delay is at this point an 
> OASIS issue, one possible way forward we could discuss would 
> involve agreeing (with OASIS Board ratification in a timely 
> manner) that any further delay by OASIS should cause the IP 
> deadline to be paused from this day forward for this TC until 
> such time as OASIS publishes our draft delivered last year.  
> Please help us to help you by publishing our specification 
> now so that we can come to rest, or please tell me what more 
> you require of us before you can finally get this off your desk.  
>  
> I note that, with this additional week of delay by OASIS, we 
> are now very close to missing our IP deadline.  We can, 
> however, still make the deadline if you act now or very soon. 
>  Please help us out here and reply to my e-mail from January 
> 17th detailing any further obstacles to your publishing our 
> specification for comment or - much better - by simply 
> publishing it immediately.
>  
> Yours truly,
>  - DG
> PS: In case it matters toward removing obstacles to 
> publishing our draft, we intend to postpone decision on the 
> final names to populate the editor and other attribution 
> fields until we gather a little more information and we 
> intend to leave those fields with the temporary characters 
> "PLACE HOLDER", which Dr. Leff has already incorporated into 
> the draft delivered to OASIS.  
>  
> Footnote 1: Mail to Mary McRea dated January 17th, 2007
>  
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Dazza Greenwood <dazza@media.mit.edu>
> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Cc: d-leff@wiu.edu; Peter Meyer <pmeyer@elkera.com.au>; 
> zoran@deontik.com; Dave Marvit <dave@marvit.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:41:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] LegalXML-eContracts committee draft
> 
> Mary,
> Thanks again for all your time spent helping the eContracts 
> TC to get our specification into shape to be published for 
> the 60 day public comment period.  A couple of questions have 
> occurred to the TC about the process and I agree to ask for 
> clarification from you so we can determine whether we need a 
> live meeting to discuss. First, can you please let us know 
> exactly what blocking issues remain to be resolved before our 
> specification can be published for comment?  It seems that 
> feedback from Ken is needed to address errors in docbook - is 
> that the final obstacle?  Second, we're puzzled by the editor 
> field.  The TC wishes to grant attribution for the content to 
> each participant equally, and we have done so in the back of 
> the document.  Is there a need to also list editors?  Most of 
> all we'd like to know how other TC's handle attribution.
> Thanks very much,
> - DG
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Patrick Gannon <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org>; Mary 
> McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46:13 AM
> Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Schedule for IPR Transition or 
> TC closure
> 
> 
> To:  Members of the OASIS LegalXML E-Contracts TC, and their 
> organizational primary representatives
> 
>    Please note that we will require action from this TC in a 
> very short timespan, if the committee wishes to remain active 
> after 15 April 2007, the transition deadline for our 2005 
> OASIS IPR Policy.
> Those TCs that have not yet formally initiated their 
> transition ballot process should do so immediately, or may 
> risk closure.
>     When we adopted the current IPR Policy, all pre-existing 
> OASIS TCs were given a 2-year period for transition to the new rules.
> This TC continues to operate under the prior IPR Policy, but 
> must complete a successful IPR Transition vote, or close, by 
> 15 April 2007.
>      Many TCs have transitioned, but some including this one 
> remain unresolved.  We understand that this TC would like to continue.
> We'd be pleased to have your further participation here.  But 
> this only can occur if the TC completes its transition on 
> time.  That requires that the TC immediately select a mode 
> and initiate the process within a few weeks.  Otherwise it's 
> unlikely that a successful transition vote can be completed 
> before 15 April, and the TC must be closed.  Please see the 
> timeline below.
>    Time is short, and we value your continued contributions.  
> We encourage you not to take the chance of postponing action 
> any longer. Your TC members may need time to agree on a 
> choice among the new policy's three IPR licensing modes.  The 
> final Transition Approval Ballot must be *unanimous* in order 
> to succeed.
>    Please contact me, my colleague Mary McRae, or any other 
> member of the OASIS standards development staff if you have 
> questions or need assistance with the required votes.
>    Thank you for your work to support OASIS and open standards.
>    Regards  JBC
> 
> ~ James Bryce Clark
> ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS ~ 
> jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
> 
> TIMELINE:  We strongly encourage completion of the transition 
> ballot by the end of March:
> 
>    *  The TC's vote to choose an IPR mode should completed by 
> 13 February 2007, if at a live quorate meeting, or if done by 
> web ballot, the ballot should be opened by 6 February 2007.
>    *  The "Transition Request" notice of the vote to the TC 
> Administrator should be sent no later than 14 February 2007.  
> The last possible date is 1 March 2007.
>    *  The 14-day Transition ballot should commence no later 
> than 16 March 2007.
>    *  The last date for completion of a successful unanimous 
> Transition ballot to avoid closure is 15 April 2007.
> 
> REFERENCES:
>    2005 IPR Policy: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ 
> intellectualproperty.php
>    Rules for TC IPR Transition: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/
> ipr_transition_policy.php
>    FAQ about Transition Policy: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/
> transition_faq.php