RE: [security-services] Proposed charter and standing rules

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

Hi Eve - these look great! Thanks very much.

If folks think "intention" is too "MUST"-like, perhaps changing it to a
"goal" would soften it a bit.  I can live with either one.

Rob Philpott 
RSA Security Inc. 
The Most Trusted Name in e-Security 
Tel: 781-515-7115 
Mobile: 617-510-0893 
Fax: 781-515-7020 
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:16 PM
> To: 'security-services@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: [security-services] Proposed charter and standing rules
> 
> Folks-- Attached are a revised charter and a corresponding set of
> standing rules.  I believe I made all the requested edits to the
> charter, and I have started to use the new proposed OASIS filenaming
> rules for that file.  I hope we can discuss these in the next meeting.
> 
> Regarding the proposed standing rule(s) on IPR requirements, here is
> what I learned in talking to the LegalXML folks and an attorney in my
> company:
> 
> - LegalXML has a specific reason for using the "in no event" (MUST)
> language regarding producing RF specs.  Since their outputs are used by
> the public sector, particularly courts, the technologies using their
> specs have to be as open as possible.
> 
> - They see no reason for a provision not to accept non-RF contributions,
> since the OASIS copyright provisions allow for the reuse of contributed
> material, and since TC spec outputs are judged wrt patents regardless of
> whether the patented material was included with foreknowledge or not.
> 
> - To quote John Greacen, the LegalXML person who kindly responded to my
> queries: "One other solution to the IPR issue has been suggested by one
> of our TC members -- that we may choose in the future to leave some
> areas of specifications open with a note that there are several
> effective proprietary solutions available in this area and users of the
> standard should investigate them and choose one.  We could even list the
> vendors in the specification.  I think that approach would be consistent
> with our charter provision."  Such a solution would apply to us as well,
> in any case where we choose an RF path.
> 
> - My company attorney weighed in on the value of softening the wording
> from "In no event..." (MUST) to something like "It is the intention..."
> (SHOULD).  He pointed out that a SHOULD version it has no legal teeth,
> but it serves as business purpose in indicating (obviously) our intent
> and direction.  So he felt it's a reasonable thing to do, if that's what
> we want.
> 
> Given the above, in the attached standing rules document I have proposed
> the following singular IPR standing rule:
> 
> "It is the intention of the TC not to approve any technical
> specification if it believes that the use, distribution, or
> implementation of such specification would necessarily require the
> unauthorized infringement of any third party rights known to the TC, and
> such third party has not openly specified and agreed to provide
> necessary license rights on perpetual, royalty-free, non-discriminatory
> terms."
> 
> On re-reading this, I wonder if this isn't too MUST-like...  But
> hopefully sending it out will give people a chance to seek input from
> their own corporate attorneys etc.
> 
> 	Eve
> 
> --
> Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
> Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com