Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

I will second Arshad's enhanced position to Dennis' original position. 
Transparency in the standards process should be cultivated from the very 
beginning of a new standard. Thank you both for raising this important 
issue.

Arshad Noor wrote:
> I will second this position.
>
> Perhaps the OASIS IPR boiler-plate should be changed to reflect
> that the default policy should be RF, and that the proposers of
> a charter should answer (with something more meaningful than the
> stock answer) why they have chosen to adopt another IPR method
> if they do not use the default.
>
> Let the "standards" market decide before the TC is convened if a
> given technology is worth standardizing despite the assertions of
> IP by some players.
>
> Arshad Noor
> StrongAuth, Inc.
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> There is a very odd boilerplate response in how some Charter comments 
>> are
>> addressed.  I'm sure it does not go without notice, but I'm going to 
>> call it
>> out anyhow.
>>
>> When someone says "I do not understand why this needs to be done 
>> under RAND
>> mode," to say "RAND is a valid OASIS IPR mode" is completely 
>> unresponsive.
>> It should be assumed that the questioner already knows that. The 
>> question
>> being asked is "Why is RAND mode adopted as opposed to one of the
>> more-lenient and predictable OASIS IPR modes?"
>>
>> To beg the question in this way is simply confirming the fears of 
>> those who
>> ask concerning unspoken agendas and intentions to (reserve the right to)
>> extract royalties. 
>> This response can continue to be used, but at some point 
>> forthrightness and
>> transparency would seem to be a preferable approach to creating a 
>> charter
>> where any sort of broad participation/adoption and support for 
>> adoption as
>> an eventual OASIS Standard is the objective. If the convener and 
>> proposers
>> are simply hedging their bets, they should maybe grow up and say it 
>> like it
>> is, even biting the bullet and make a solid declaration -- there is 
>> IP that
>> will be asserted or there is and it will be RF on RAND or even RF on 
>> Limited
>> Terms.  If the potential IP is speculative, commit about that up 
>> front so
>> others understand what they are walking into and freely contributing 
>> into if
>> they choose to do that.
>>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> Dennis E. Hamilton
>> ------------------
>> NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
>> mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
>> http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com