[FWD: [legalxml-courtfiling] LegalXML ECF TC charter draft changes]

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

This might be of guidance for our charter changes.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] LegalXML ECF TC charter draft changes
> From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> Date: Fri, December 07, 2007 12:31 pm
> To: "John M. Greacen" <john@greacen.net>, "'Clarke, Thomas'"
> <tclarke@ncsc.dni.us>, legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> 
> 
> John, Tom and committee members:  Thanks again for your work to 
> update your plans for this technical committee, as well as your work 
> on open standards for legal documents generally.  Apologies for only 
> being able to respond in time for the second day of your current 
> meetings.
> 
>    It looks to me like you will be able to accompish all, or 
> substantially all, of the goals expressed in your proposed draft 
> charter changes.  Here are the necessary steps.
> 
>    Background.
>    OASIS rules are careful with charters, as they form both the TC's 
> work plan, and the outer boundaries of the licensing commitment of 
> TC members.  OASIS rules provide two ways to modify an existing TC's 
> charter: a minor "clarification", which permits updates to 
> deliverable lists, but not changes to the "scope" (the functional 
> areas the TC will address) under section 2.11 of our rules;  and a 
> major "rechartering", which permits most anything but an IPR mode 
> change.
>    Approval of either requires a 15-day web ballot of the TC run by 
> OASIS staff (the TC Administrator, Mary McRae, copied here) and a 
> supermajority in favor, equal to that required to approve a final 
> Committee Specification.
>    (Please note that the latter, major change can expand the scope 
> of TC members' obligations to offer licenses (under the OASIS IPR 
> Policy) to support the TC's approved work, if they claim to hold 
> rights in works necessary to its implementation.  For that reason, 
> at the conclusion of a 'rechartering', the rules require that input 
> work (e.g. ongoing drafts) be re-contributed (usually by a reposting 
> to the list) so it's clear they are available under the new, 
> broadened scope.  As a practical matter, as your TC has not been 
> advised of any burdened TC IPR claims, and all contributed work 
> apparently is freely usable, this should not be an obstacle.)
> 
>    Next steps.
>    It appears your proposed changes *will* be a rechartering, adding 
> new functional areas to the TC's planned program of work. Please see 
> the notes on those items below, as you have special expertise on the 
> meaning of these areas, as to legal-industry-specific technical 
> matters.
>    If these conclusions re satisfactory, simply indicate to Mary McRae,
> my colleague, that she can open the web ballot over any 15-day
> period you choose. If not, let's discuss any open points (including
> her in that chat).
> 
>    Issues to confirm.
>    Most of the updated and draft changes seem productive and 
> helpful.  The following areas of your latest draft (lifted as 
> quotes, here) raise comments that we wanted to share with you before 
> you approve and proceed with a TC vote on that draft:
> 
> >> 5. sending and receiving payments associated with filings
> >> electronically, and
> 
> Comment: This appears to be a new function, not present in the prior
> charter - thus a reason to use the "rechartering" method of charter
> change. If I am wrong, and the 'payments' function somehow
> necessarily is subsumed in the prior approved TC charter, feel free
> to call that to our attention.
> 
> >> 6. providing appropriate security to ensure the
> >> confidentiality, authenticity, correctness and completeness of
> >> the information transmitted.
> 
> Comment: (Same as prior.) This appears to be a new function, not
> present in the prior charter - thus a reason to use the
> "rechartering" method of charter change. If I am wrong, and the
> 'security' function somehow necessarily is subsumed in the prior
> approved TC charter, feel free to call that to our attention.
> 
> >> 6. Develop for release in early 2009 a mapping between the ECF 
> >> specification and the PRIA specification for filing deeds,
> >> mortgages, liens and other real property instruments
> 
> Comment: This is an interesting and laudable project! I note that it
> might require PRIA permission, depending on their rights claims, and
> what's planned. Or perhaps not - let's discuss at your convenience,
> but this issue need not be resolved to enact the charter change.
> Also, I note that government-recordable, non-court documents might
> originally have been the sort of thing that might be sent to a
> *different* LegalXML TC, but of course, such questions are for you
> and your community to work out. Finally, again, as with the others
> above, this appears to be an expansion of scope, thus guide us to
> use a "rechartering" rather than "clarification" ballot.
> 
> >> Duration
> >> The Technical Committee intends to continue indefinitely, so
> >> long as there is a need for the development, refinement, and
> >> implementation of XML standards to support electronic filing of
> >> court and legal profession documents in the United States and
> >> other countries, modifying this Charter from time to time to
> >> define new and revised tasks.
> 
> Comment: I see no problem with this; but be aware that, to do so,
> the Committee will need to refresh its charter list of deliverables
> from time to time -- as you;ve stated -- because the rules would
> require us to close TCs when their list of planned deliverables
> finally is exhausted. Also, separately, I would enjoy a conversation
> at some convenient future time about how to increase input from
> other non-North-American jurisdictions. We know of several informal,
> international users with interest in your work.
> 
> >> Officers
> >> The Technical Committee has the following officers:
> >> - Public and private sector co-chairs
> 
> Comment: Please note that, while I see no problem with the ambition
> to have balanced leadership, our TC Process requires that TC chairs
> be elected in an open election by the full committee -- thus may not
> support a mandate of "one public and one private" chairperson, if
> multiple qualified candidates with different backgrounds stand for
> office and then are elected by the required majority votes.
> 
> >> Officers will be elected annually during December of each year,
> >> by a majority of those voting members voting, to serve during
> >> the following calendar year.  Officers shall serve until their
> >> replacements take office.
> 
> Comment: Again, our rules do not specify limited officer terms, and
> do set a specific procedure for chair removal. Personally I think
> it's laudable, though, and I do not believe it's prohibited. The
> best way to achieve your goal here probably is to ask each
> candidate, at the time of election, to that they are standing for
> election only for 12 months, and willing to resign and/or re-run
> after 12 months.
> 
>    Congratulations on your recent progress as reflected by the 
> material posted to the TC site;  best of luck with your meetings, 
> and your continued success with this important set of projects.
> 
>    Kind regards  JBC
> 
> ~ James Bryce Clark
> ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
> ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php