OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: IPR transition for eContracts TC


Hi Dan,

I am afraid I don't agree with your proposal. I agree there is fatigue and
we are at the end of our useful lifecycle on this. However, you appear to be
painting a picture beyond our 1.0 spec. As I made clear, I only want to get
to a 1.0 spec and then leave it. I am certainly at the end of my string on
this. I just want to make sure we can put out a 1.0 spec we are happy with
and not frustrated because we cannot constitutionally complete a review
after the end of the public review period. I am prepared to see that process
through.

Your proposal seems to be saying that what we have now is a 1.0 spec
regardless of any feedback in this public review. I think the approach is
very cavalier. We don't know what issues will be raised, if any.

I do not agree that a move to the new IP policy will allow further delay.

Your proposal does not address at all the proposal to seek a dispensation
from OASIS or an extension of time so that we can finish our work before we
are disbanded. Perhaps the best approach is merely an extension to the 15
April deadline so we have sufficient days to review the results from the
public review, make any changes, if needed, submit for a further 14 days and
then vote our spec. Why should OASIS refuse that? From my conversation with
Dr Leff who called me today, I believe OASIS has provision in its rules to
do this.

I agree with Dave that a move to another body is an option but I don't want
to go there if it is at all possible to avoid. It will necessarily involve a
lot more work than jumping through a few hoops to seek a dispensation or
even to switch to the new IPR rules that will have no effect on us at all.

Is there any reason why we should not seek a dispensation or extension from
OASIS? If Dr Leff or anyone else already familiar with OASIS rules will
point me in the right direction of the relevant provisions under which the
new IPR rules are enforced, I will be happy to draft a submission and
circulate it for review before it is sent off by Dan as chair.

I am puzzled by the resistance to us taking concrete steps to ensure we are
in a position where we can finish our 1.0 spec. What am I missing here?

Regards
Peter

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Greenwood [mailto:dazza@media.mit.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, 5 February 2007 6:27 PM
> To: Dave Marvit; pmeyer@elkera.com.au
> Cc: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Dr. Laurence 
> Leff'; 'Leff'; Dazza; 'Zoran Milosevic'
> Subject: Re: IPR transition for eContracts TC
> 
> I observe the TC is not in a position to do further 
> substantive work due to attrition and fatigue and suggest we 
> recognize the comment period as a formality prior to voting 
> for our spec as it stands.  If there is appetite to do more 
> work after we vote it out as a 1.0 final spec (whether based 
> on comments or otherwise), then I invite those so inclined to 
> form a subsequent TC and further evolve the document.  Any 
> new TC will operate under the new less open IP policy and our 
> TC need not worry about that.  I predict any move to a new IP 
> policy will allow further delay and I do not support it.  Any 
> further work should not be done by the TC as currently 
> constituted because we are already beyond our useful life 
> cycle.  If at the end of the comment period we don't have the 
> votes to pass the spec as is, then moving the remaining work 
> to a new oasis TC (if 3 or more people wish to carry on) or 
> (better) to W3C would be a better option to allow a shakeup 
> and new growth.  Agreed?
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Marvit <dave@marvit.org>
> Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:11:03 
> To:pmeyer@elkera.com.au
> Cc:legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org,       "'Dr. 
> Laurence Leff'" <D-Leff@wiu.edu>,       "'Leff'" 
> <doctorleff@hotmail.com>,       "'Dazza Greenwood'" 
> <dazza@media.mit.edu>,       "'Zoran Milosevic'" <zoran@deontik.com>
> Subject: Re: IPR transition for eContracts TC
> 
> Peter et al.,
> 
> There is a fourth option which I am mentioning here only for 
> the sake of 
> completeness.  If oasis is uncooperative I believe that we could take 
> our completed specification elsewhere, perhaps the WC3, and 
> release it 
> under their auspices.  Although I would be loath to do this, I do 
> believe that it is important for us to recognize the full 
> range of our 
> options.  We must recognize that if oasis is unreasonable we do have 
> other options.  Although this is something that none of us 
> want to do, 
> awareness of our BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated 
> agreement) is 
> vital if we are forced to negotiate.
> 
> -- Dave
> 
> Peter Meyer wrote:
> > Dear TC members,
> >
> > I replied to Dr Leff's earlier message today regarding 
> continuation of the
> > TC. I would like to pick up the issues raised and see if we 
> can decide on a
> > way forward to ensure that our apparent success does not 
> turn sour because
> > we are not able to properly cross the finish line.
> >
> >
> > CURRENT STATUS
> >
> > We are currently in a 60 day public review period for our draft
> > specification. I understand that period will end on about 28 March.
> >
> > It is also my understanding that if we do not make the IPR 
> transition under
> > OASIS rules by 15 April, the TC will terminate.
> >
> > My personal objective is to see our eContracts 1.0 
> specification approved by
> > the TC and published as a Committee specification. I do not 
> wish to continue
> > with the TC after our spec is finalised. I believe it will 
> be best if those
> > interested take feedback and form new TCs of stakeholders 
> interested in
> > going forward in specific directions.
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is insufficient time for us to make 
> any changes to the
> > specification after the initial 60 day public review. If 
> someone raises any
> > issues that we feel should be taken on board, we would have 
> to deal with the
> > issues and re-publish the specification for 14 days before 
> finally voting on
> > it. That cannot be accomplished in the time that will be available.
> >
> >
> > OPTIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
> >
> > We are now faced with 3 possibilities:
> >
> > Option 1. Do nothing and assume that we will not need to 
> make any changes
> > after the 60 day review period.
> >
> > This is a real option. We have a pretty well resolved 
> schema. Clearly there
> > are many issues that could be addressed in it and some were 
> even raised by
> > Dr Hoylen Sue via Zoren in our final review of the 
> specification. However,
> > these are minor and anyone implementing the spec can easily 
> deal with them
> > if the wish. Personally, I think it unlikely we will have 
> to make a material
> > change. However, these things are never so clear cut and 
> there are many fine
> > minds out there who may have some good insights that we 
> feel should be
> > incorporated or who find a defect in our work. We may find 
> it desirable to
> > accept a submission before our final sign-off.
> >
> > Option 2. Seek from OASIS a dispensation from compliance 
> with the IPR
> > transition rules.
> >
> > If we are to do this, we need to do it very quickly. I do 
> not know if it is
> > possible to do this under OASIS rules. I would be surprised 
> if it were not
> > possible. We are asking OASIS to do work so we do not have 
> to (or can't) so
> > OASIS may not be so enthusiastic about it.
> >
> > Logically and practically for our point of view, this seems 
> to me the best
> > option. There are 3 reasons for this:
> >
> > (a) The TC's work is essentially complete. It is my 
> understanding that there
> > is no general interest from members to continue this TC past the
> > finalisation of our 1.0 specification. Thus, the only work 
> that the TC
> > intends to do is to finalise its specification by 
> considering responses to
> > the 60 day public review. It is unlikely that we will need 
> to make any
> > material changes but we want the flexibility to do so to 
> make sure our
> > specification can be used.
> >
> > (b) All relevant IP contributions have been made by TC 
> members and will be
> > governed by the terms on which they were originally made, 
> not the new rules.
> > Nothing will change for our specification unless new 
> contributions are made.
> > I cannot foresee any circumstance under which any new 
> contributions will be
> > made that would invoke the IPR policies.
> >
> > (c) The thrust of the new IPR rules is to deal with 
> patents. There are no
> > patents involved with the eContracts specification, at 
> least as far as
> > members are concerned. Elkera contributed the body of the 
> eContracts schema
> > and held copyright interests only. Elkera does not assert 
> any patent rights
> > in respect of the contributed work. I am not aware of any 
> other contribution
> > that could be governed by a patent right.
> >
> > In order to facilitate this, we may need to convince OASIS 
> that the TC will
> > terminate after its specification is approved. Perhaps a 
> vote to that effect
> > may be needed.
> >
> >
> > Option 3. Proceed with the IPR transition under OASIS rules.
> >
> > That would require us to act fairly quickly. It is a royal 
> pain to have to
> > do this. It should not be too difficult administratively 
> but it will require
> > each member organization to consider its policy. That is, 
> the primary
> > contact for each member organization. I don't know if 
> organizations that
> > Dave or Dan represent can deal with this in the time available.
> > Fundamentally, that is probably the threshold issue.
> >
> > The IPR transition rules are a challenging read but they 
> are summarized in
> > the FAQ:
> >
> > Step 1:
> > At least fifty percent of the represented Organizations and 
> Individual
> > Members serving as TC Participants sign the new OASIS 
> Membership Agreement.
> > (Members will have access to information on which TC 
> Participants have
> > completed the agreement, so that everyone involved is aware 
> of the upcoming
> > mode selection.)
> >
> > Step 2:
> > Committee members choose the IPR mode best suited to their 
> work and request
> > that the OASIS TC Administrator opens a transition ballot.
> >
> > Step 3:
> > No sooner than 30 days later (in order to give all other members the
> > opportunity to sign the Membership Agreement), the OASIS TC 
> Administrator
> > opens the Transition Ballot.
> >
> > Step 4:
> > Votes are cast by the Primary Contacts of the organizations 
> that have
> > employees as TC Participants (so that there is one vote per 
> organization),
> > and Individual Members who are TC Participants, but in each 
> case only those
> > who have signed the OASIS Membership Agreement. Balloting 
> remains open for
> > 14 days.
> >
> > Step 5:
> > If the ballot passes, results of the transition vote are 
> announced by the
> > OASIS TC Administrator, and the Committee begins operation 
> under the OASIS
> > IPR Policy 14 days later. The vote to approve an IPR mode 
> must be unanimous.
> > This ensures that Committees are able to complete their 
> work, make use of
> > necessary Contributions, and retain the support of all TC 
> Participants.
> >
> > If the ballot fails, the Committee may try again, 
> specifying the same or an
> > alternative mode. In the event that TC Participants do not 
> agree on a new
> > IPR Mode (or if Participants choose not to undertake a 
> transition ballot) a
> > Committee can continue to operate under the terms of its 
> existing charter
> > and previous OASIS IPR Policy for up to two years in order 
> to complete its
> > work.
> >
> >
> > In a previous email to the TC, Jamie Clarke provided the following:
> >   
> >> 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. 
> >>     
> >
> > I believe that all current members would have signed the 
> new membership
> > agreement to re-join OASIS. We should be free to choose a policy. In
> > practical terms it would make no difference which policy we 
> adopt. I propose
> > we use the most convenient for third party implementers 
> which would be the
> > "RF on limited terms" set out in section 10.2.3 of the IPR rules.
> >
> > To initiate this, we would need to hold a vote to adopt a 
> policy and then
> > proceed with a transition request notice which must be sent 
> no later than 1
> > March 2007.
> >
> >
> > NEXT STEPS
> >
> > I would prefer to avoid option 1. Its gambling and it means 
> that we lose
> > control.
> >
> > I believe that option 2 is the most appropriate. The issues 
> are whether
> > OASIS can grant a dispensation for our special case and 
> then whether it will
> > agree to do so.
> >
> > I would proceed with Option 3 if we cannot succeed with 
> option 2. However,
> > we need to understand the issues involved in selecting an 
> IPR policy given
> > that it is not done by the active TC members but by the 
> member's principal
> > representatives. It may not be practicable for us to secure 
> the formal
> > approvals to adopt option 3 at this stage.
> >
> > For these reasons, I believe we should explore with OASIS 
> if there is any
> > possibility of going with Option 2.
> >
> > Dan, can you raise this with OASIS, putting the arguments I 
> listed and any
> > others you think may be relevant?
> >
> > Can we have a phone conference this week to discuss the options?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > Elkera Pty Limited (ACN 092 447 428)
> > Email: pmeyer@elkera.com
> > Ph: +61 2 8440 6900 * Fax: +61 2 8440 6988
> > Skype: pwrmeyer
> > http://www.elkera.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]