[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action
I have received requests for changes from Dave and Dan. Because of my work load, I am unable to accomodate requests to type in changes or revise drafts. Please confer between yourselves, generate a finalized revised draft, and post it for comments. Until such changes are received and approved, regrettably there is no finalized document to present to the Board. Thank you. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action > From: "D. Greenwood" <dazza@media.mit.edu> > Date: Wed, March 14, 2007 1:02 pm > To: "James Bryce Clark" > <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>,legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org,legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org,"Patrick > Gannon" <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org> > Cc: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,"'John Messing'" > <jmessing@law-on-line.com>,"Dazza" <dazza@media.mit.edu> > > In addition to John's comments, I think it would be more accurate to say that while tc does not desire to make more substantive changes due to fatigue with a many year process, we are still prepared to accept some changes as needed and to refer others to future efforts of other TC's. That is why we seek the extension - otherwise, we would not need an extension if we merely intended to "politely process any comments". So, please change that. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org> > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:58:28 > To:legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org, legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org, Patrick Gannon <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org> > Cc:Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>, "'John Messing'" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>, Dazza Greenwood <dazza@media.mit.edu> > Subject: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action > > Hello all. This confirms our discussion at the LegalXML MS > Steering Committee meeting this morning. > Dan, as chair of the LegalXML e-Contracts TC, has informed us > that the committee wishes to be permitted to continue to operating > until 1 May 2007, two weeks past its scheduled closure date, as > described in the draft letter below. Note, no IPR transition would > occur, and this waiver requires OASIS Board action under our IPR > Transition Policy. In my words, the TC's intent is to permit a > brief response period, in order for the TC to politely process any > comments (as yet unreceived) to the current Public Review [1], prior > to a final expected approval of the Committee Specification. > As I understand it, the Steering Committee endorsed this request, > and John Messing & Dan Greenwood will collaborate on a finalized > letter to be sent to Patrick Gannon for Board consideration by > Friday morning 16 March. (That target would allow consideration of > the request as an action item by the Board at its March meeting.) > Open action items are: > 1. Dan & Dave to send us a notice (or minutes) of the TC's > decision to make that request. > 2. John & Dan to send letter to Patrick. > 3. Patrick to add to Board agenda. > > If I missed anything, please reply to the addressees on this message > with a correction. Thanks. > > Regards Jamie > > ~ James Bryce Clark > ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS > ~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > > [1] PR ending 27 March: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200701/msg00013.html > > Winters, Roger wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel J. Greenwood [mailto:dang@media.mit.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:58 AM > > To: John Messing; Winters, Roger > > Cc: Dave Marvit > > Subject: Please add this to Steering Commiittee agenda... > > > > Hi John and Roger, > > > > Dave asked me to send you our TC request for your consideration (he'll > > be on the call, but could not send it from the road). We're asking, as > > a TC, that the SC request a short contingent extension on IP transition > > for our TC so we can finish our spec on time and with no needless > > hassle. We believe it won't be needed (we can finish and close before > > the deadline if there are no substantive changes needed based on > > comments). We have no comments yet and expect none to come. This is a > > preventative measure. > > > > Please phone me in (I'm around next 30 mins or so) if you'd like > > background or just to say hi :-) > > > > Thanks and I hope you are both well, > > > > - Dan G > > > > Mr Patrick Gannon > > President and CEO > > OASIS Open > > > > Dear Patrick, > > OASIS LegalXML Steering Committee on Behalf of the eContracts TC (TC) > > OASIS IPR Transition Policy - Request for extension of time to > > transition under clause 10 > > The eContracts TC's draft eContracts specification was released by OASIS > > for public review on 27 January 2007. As you may be aware, this is the > > culmination of a difficult and lengthy process by the TC which everyone > > expected would be completed many months earlier. > > It is the intention of all active TC members that the TC will be > > dissolved as soon as the TC votes on a resolution to adopt the draft as > > a Committee Specification. All active TC members have confirmed this > > intention. The reason for this is that the TC consists of members with a > > range of interests. The TC as a whole is not in a position to actively > > promote the specification. The current specification is intended to be a > > foundation on which other groups may build further works. To do this, it > > will be necessary to create new TCs with wider representation from > > particular market segments. > > The public review period for the draft specification will end on about > > 28 March 2007. A likely process after the end of that period is as > > follows: > > 1. TC considers responses - 1 week > > 2. TC makes changes to specification and agrees to changes - 2 weeks > > 3. If changes are material, the specification is sent to OASIS for > > further public comment - 1 week > > 4. Further public review period - 2 weeks > > 5. TC meets to approve Committee specification - 1 week. > > This scenario indicates that the TC may need to continue for around 7 > > weeks after the end of the public review period to complete its work if > > it considers that material changes are required after the current public > > review period, i.e., to around 15 May 2007. To allow some leeway, the TC > > should expect to complete is work no later than 31 May. The TC sincerely > > hopes this will not be necessary and that it will be able to vote on its > > specification immediately after the public review period. However, it > > would like to ensure that it can finalise its work to the desired > > standard. > > Clause 10 the IPR Transition Policy, provides as follows: > > "10. Existing TCs that reach the threshold but do not have a successful > > Transition Approval Ballot may continue operating under the old IPR > > Policy for as long as it takes them to complete all their deliverables, > > or until two (2) years have passed since the effective date of the IPR > > Policy, whichever comes first. Otherwise they will be closed by the TC > > Administrator. Any exceptions to this must be approved by the OASIS > > Board of Directors, whose decision is final." > > It is our understanding that the period of two years after the effective > > date will end on 15 April 2007. > > The TC has not commenced a transition to the new IPR rules. The TC did > > not initiate an IPR transition because until as late as December 2006 it > > expected to be able to complete all work before 15 April and disband. > > The TC asks the Board to approve an exception to the IPR transition > > policy for the eContracts TC under clause 10 to allow the TC to continue > > until 31 May 2007 and complete its work. > > The grounds on which the TC makes this request are: (a) The TC's work is > > essentially complete. The only work that the TC intends to do is to > > finalise its specification by considering responses to the 60 day public > > review. Following a vote on its specification, the TC will be > > dissolved. > > (b) All relevant IP contributions have been made by TC members and will > > be governed by the terms of the old IPR rules on which they were > > originally made, not the new rules. The IPR rules governing the > > specification will not change unless new contributions are made. The TC > > cannot foresee any circumstance under which any new material > > contributions will be made. > > (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 Pty Ltd contributed the body of the > > eContracts schema and asserted copyright interests only. Elkera has > > stated that it does not assert any patent rights in respect of the > > contributed work. The TC is not aware of any new relevant contribution > > that could be governed by a patent right. > > (d) Some TC members are corporate members who may not be able to deal > > with the necessary issues within the time available. There are no good > > reasons to ask them to consider the issues involved in choosing a new IP > > mode for the work of this TC. > > In summary, an IPR transition for this TC would only cause inconvenience > > and have no impact on the results of the TC's work for OASIS or users of > > the TC's specification. The TC submits that an extension of the cut-off > > date for the IPR transition rules for this TC will facilitate the > > completion of a high quality specification by the TC and have no adverse > > impact on any person. > > Yours ##sincerely/truly > > John Messing, Esq. > > OASIS LegalXML SC Chair > > Daniel Greenwood, Esq. > > eContracts TC Chair
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]