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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

courtfiling-reqts message

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

Subject: RE: eService process descriptions

In answer to your P.S., yes, we now have a subcommittee list.  I've included the list in this reply.  I am hoping others will do the same.
In response to your points, like you, I have been concerned about a centralized model for e-service and the issues with registration in that model.  I also agree that registering as a party to a case that can receive filings electronically (is that secondary service?) is different from registering to receive service for any case (which isn't primary or secondary service in my understanding).
I have CCed John Greacen as well because he seemed to be the strongest advocate for that model at the face-to-face.  I understand John is out of the country but I'm hoping he at least can respond to emails.

Jim Cabral


From: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 1:29 PM
To: dpowell@tybera.com; Cabral, James E.; scott@justiceintegration.com; Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov
Subject: eService process descriptions

Dallas, et al,
(Happy new year)
I agree that there may be a different set of functional features between a vendor-to-vendor approach, vs. a vendor-to-server approach.  (Note: this conversation parallels the usual peer-to-peer vs client-server discussions that occur so frequently in our work.)
Let's discuss - I'll try to get the ball rolling...
The biggest functional distinction that comes to mind:
In the peer-to-peer approach that I have been pondering, I have successfully avoided the discussion of how attorneys would become registered to receive eservice (aka 'eservice registration' or, for this conversation, let's call it 'registration'.)
In a peer-to-peer approach, the attorney's 'eservice component' is aware of its own attorneys' eservice preferences.  Conveniently, the 'registration' process becomes a private function between an eservice component and its users.  Each 'eservice component', is free to manage their users service profiles and preferences however they see fit, and to facilitate maintenance by whatever means is appropriate.
On the other hand...
In a client-server process, there exists a SINGLE centralized system, responsible for tracking everyone's eservice preferences.  Consequently, it must also define the SINGLE process by which any member of the filing community can create, update, or remove their eservice preferences (and, also,  make sure users can NOT update others' service preferences).  Such a 'registration' process would not necessarily have to be electronic (we *could* continue to side-step the issue)... but, more than likely, it *would* be an electronic process, and, then, fall in our laps to define.
The scary part of such a registration process, is that there isn't a good paper-world model for us to follow.  To my knowledge, there is no paper-world system, where the community of users agree to maintain a SINGLE eservice list for ALL members of the community.  And so, there are no existing paper-world rules that dictate HOW and WHEN a centralized eservice list would be updated.  
I think that many of us believe that the courts currently *do* manage eservice lists (eg a case's party list) - but, every time I dig a little deeper, it turns out not to be true.  Clerks maintain case records - not eservice lists.  There is a difference.  An attorney's eservice list is often a bit broader and often a bit more precise than the court's case records.
And, it is at that point, where I feel we run into something that is outside the scope of our requirements group.  If there is no paper-world authority to maintain a centralized eservice list, then I think we can't invent one in the electronic world.
It is certainly reasonable for this group to define electronic equivalents of existing (paper-world) processes.  It is quite a different (and much more difficult) task for us to invent processes (ie 'central authorities') that don't presently exist.  At the least, it's a red flag, eh?
- Shane 'peer-to-peer' Durham
PS: Is there a new workgroup list in which this discussion should be documented?
 ----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] eService process descriptions

Dallas, two comments:


I think your interpretation accords well with the component approach we are trying to take.

I don’t think you got Shane on your address list, so he didn’t see your email.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:24 AM
To: Clarke, Tom; jcabral@mtgmc.com; scott@justiceintegration.com
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] eService process descriptions


If from your comments your suggestion is to avoid the distinction between court controlled or vender controlled, I agree.  However, I think that the intent of the distinction is the different feature set needed when multiple entities are sanctioned as service providers vs. one entity.  Whether a single entity sactioned is the court, the bar, or a vendor, and what role must be played when the different situations take place.  We need to define the feature sets for both and distinguish between them.




----- Original Message -----

From: Clarke, Tom

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:30 PM

Subject: FW: [legalxml-courtfiling] eService process descriptions




-----Original Message-----
From: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:06 PM
To: john@greacen.net
Cc: Clarke, Tom
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] eService process descriptions


I just made a quick review of these materials. I particularly like the well-illustrated distinction in service processes managed by the court vs those managed by the vendors.


The overall comment I have:


Of those electronic processes indicated as being managed by 'the court'...


To me...

I think these could be more generally thought of as 'eservice conducted through a central authority' (or centralized system).  That authority *could* be the court, but could also be managed by any organization sanctioned by that legal community, such as the bar. 


I just want to point out that the options aren't necessarily 'eservice directly between vendors'... and 'eservice through the court'.   The central authority need not necessarily be the court itself, eh?



- Shane



From: John Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:04 PM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] eService process descriptions

Here are the materials that I presented in Las Vegas, updated to incorporate the discussions that took place.  I look forward to your comments and suggestions.


John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR 78, Box 23

Regina, New Mexico 87046


505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)


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