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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

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

Subject: RE: [chairs] IPR Transition Policy

	I sent these to the list as that is where Jamie suggested.  Can
you forward the questions to the board please?  I gather they are
meeting to discuss some of this in the next day or so.  Jamie was keen
for me to send in the comments.

	My second point is to do with the fact that someone may be a
contributor but not a voting member and therefore can not vote on the
IPR model for the TC.  I feel that the IPR policy should be for the
entire membership not just the voting membership.  This is made
better/worse by the new definition of a member/voting member.

	Thanks for the answers to the other questions.

Martin Roberts
xml designer,
BT Exact
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  .

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: 25 October 2004 14:27
To: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R
Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; jamie.clark@oasis-open.org;
Subject: Re: [chairs] IPR Transition Policy


> 1) I was informed that there will be no transition for TC process 
> document.  The concern I have for this is that this changes the voting

> rights of various members who either through geography or expense are 
> unable to join in meetings of TC and therefore would lose the voting 
> rights that for some TC are managed in a more flexible manner at the 
> chairs discretion.  For example people may be able to do F2F but not a

> weekly call.

You're correct that there is no transition *process* to get TCs from the
current TC Process to the new TC Process. But there is a transition
period, if you want to call it that. The draft TC Process has been out
for review for the past couple of weeks, and once approved by the Board
will not be effective for some period of time. As the target effective
date for the TC Process and IPR Policy are some time in January,
everyone has at least three months before the revisions become

Nobody will be loosing rights because of this change; those with voting
rights (the current Member) will retain them (i.e. will become a Voting
Member). Retention of voting rights through meeting attendance will not
change; you still need to maintain 2/3 attendance, though you must also
now return ballots as those count the same as attending meetings. There
continues to be no difference, for attendance purposes, between a f2f
and a concall.

The new Member, though it has rights similar to the current Observer,
requires permission of the person's organization, so we cannot
automatically transition current Observers to new Members.

> 2) Now we then have a different basis for IPR of a TC that requires 
> maybe 100% or 66% of the voting member to agree.  It is quite possible

> that a major contributor that has no voting rights could be affected 
> by this policy.  I feel that the right to vote needs to be looked at 
> for this one issue of the IPR for the TC.

I'm not certain what you're asking (don't understand your question) but
I think that it's about the transition. To transition to the new IPR
Policy, 50% of the organizational and Individual members represented in
the TC must have signed the new Membership Agreement. Then the
membership of the TC must select which mode they want to work under,
then a vote will be held for the organizational and Individual members
(who will bear the IPR obligations) to ratify that mode selection.

> 3) I am concerned at the hurdles being placed in front of the RF IPR 
> models.  We have found that even on TC business that it is very 
> difficult to get votes completed.  I therefore think that uninamous 
> votes are not a feesable option.  I feel that a super-majority should 
> be applied in all cases and that for all options a period of 60 days 
> should be given to allow a contributor to remove their contributions 
> should the vote not go the way they need.
> 4) I think that it would be useful for OASIS to give a list of RF 
> licenses that they feel would fit into the the two categories of RF 
> and therefore help 'prime the pump' in those areas. It might be useful

> for OASIS to give an example license for the RAND as well come to 
> think of it.
> 5) I know this has been raised but I am concerned about individual 
> membership and their position.  As this was the route for my 
> involvement in OASIS I feel that this useful soft entry point should 
> be maintained and cover for such people should be provided.

You should probably send these comments to the Board, who have defined
these policies. We had a member review period on these policies last
summer, but they have not yet been approved.

> 6) If a TC fails to get 50% of it membership to renew according to the

> new membership details is there any provision to allow the creation of

> a new TC based on a previous TC?

A new TC can be formed at any time. So yes it is possible to form a new
TC to replace one that has closed due to it being unable to complete the


> Thanks
> Martin Roberts
> xml designer,
> BT Exact
> e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com
> tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  .

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