[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: exam CPPA BALLOT for Specification version 1.9Approval (VOTE ENDS April 26)
Dear Dale and other CPP/A ers, Given the helpful clarifications on the teleconference today, I feel able to restore my original vote and vote FOR the CPP/A spec 1.9 going forward for public review. I think the concerns that I, and others, have are now well known and accepted. By the time we come to the next vote to accept a subsequent draft as a TC specification then the IPR issue will have been settled. For me that means either that the encumbrances have been removed (a royalty and hassle free process for ever, or better) or there is a clear statement as to exactly what is covered by both patents and a clear statement of the licensing process. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com <mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com> (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com] Sent: 26 April 2002 13:09 To: Dale Moberg Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: exam CPPA BALLOT for Specification version 1.9 Approval (VOTE ENDS April 26) Dear Dale, Thank you for this helpful mail. My concern is that people will not implement the specification if it is encumbered. I have some evidence that people who are sceptical about ebXML are using this (yes wildly and incorrectly) as further evidence to dame ebXML as a whole. My hope is that firing a warning shot now will encourage IBM to do even better that than they have so far, quickly. It is a case of perception as much as anything at present. I hope to be on the call today - at least for a while and may feel able to restore my original vote after. However I would be concerned anyway if you are telling me that my vote is crucial. If it does not pass be several votes then there clearly is an issue. Very happy to accept that others have done the job and that the spec is technical fine - but accepting as a TC spec is more than that. See also below. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com <mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com> (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Sent: 25 April 2002 17:06 To: Tony Fletcher Cc: Ebxml-Cppa List Subject: [ebxml-cppa] RE: exam CPPA BALLOT for Specification version 1.9 Approval (VOTE ENDS April 26) Tony, I think that a change in vote is allowed before voting closes midnight Friday at midnight, but I need to check the rules of order to confirm that is the case. There are still several voting members that have not sent in votes, so I have not yet started publicity for an initial public review period. Of course, we will not start this publicity if the required 2/3 approval is not obtained. It is unfortunate that these complex IPR issues arose precisely when we were doing our TC vote, for it has mixed up issues of whether the specification is ready for wider review with questions of whether we like the terms IBM has announced with respect to its asserted IPR. < True - and I agree it would actually have been worse if IBM had held back and disclosed later> I wish that we had identified these concerns and tried to discuss them in more detail prior to calling for a vote. Ah, hindsight. Perhaps we should have divided the question more precisely for voting and voted separately on whether we would move forward until IPR issues were satisfied to everyone's satisfaction. Of course, how we vote on the specification's progress has no necessary connection with what IBM will choose to do concerning granting access to their IPR. <No necessary connection, but not approving or only just approving with small majority and clear reservations will send a message to IBM and others> Full disclosure is required by OASIS, and IBM has complied. <Yes, though almost a year late - and No - they have not spelt out the implications even for the published patent and there is a second patent where they have disclosed the existence, but not the content and implications.> We do not know about any non-member IPR claims, of course. IBM has offered RAND terms with a RF rider, and some have wanted a more precise statement of the RF rider. Our concern with these IPR issues has presumably been a concern with the impact on implementation and utilization of our CPPA specification. It is hard for me to see that by moving the specification forward we are thereby promoting some competitive advantage that IBM has, because they have announced their IPR, and said that they won't try to profit from it by charging implementers of CPPA related functionality. But perhaps there is some worry about that fairness aspect also. <Yes and that implementers will have to go through the chore of applying for a licence correctly and may have to what an unspecified time before IBM responds.> Ironically, not voting to move the specification forward will have a large impact on implementation and utilization, and perhaps jeopardize or tarnish the ebXML family of specifications, though of course the specifications can be used independently. <In the very short term, yes, but if the issue is resolved fully then the spec is agreed by acclaim we would actually end up in a better position> I would hope that by the time we vote to send the specification to OASIS for consideration as a specification that we would have a satisfactory resolution to IPR terms and procedures. If not, we can vote to delay or stop our work at that point. <Accepted> I will check on the Rules of Order on changing the vote and reply here later. Bye, Dale -----Original Message----- From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:18 AM To: Dale Moberg Cc: Ebxml-Cppa List Subject: RE: exam CPPA BALLOT for Specification version 1.9 Approval (VOTE ENDS April 26) Dear Dale and CPP/A Colleagues, I do not know if this is allowed, but I would like to withdraw my FOR vote on CPP/A and replace it with ABSTAIN. I have become uncomfortable with the IPR issue. As I said originally I have had reservations about this aspect since the news broke. I also stand by what I said originally in that we should not 'shoot the messenger' - Marty is blameless and has worked hard and effectively in this area for several years now. However, any licence is not zero cost if you have to apply for it - there is always, at least, the cost of applying and the potential for delay in receiving a licence. I would like to see IBM explain to the TC exactly what is covered so that we understand whether it is possible to implement CPP/A in a meaningful way without requiring a licence, or not. I would also like to seem IBM offer an 'open licence' (or what ever the correct legal term is), royalty free, such that one did not need to go through an application process. Any implementation would automatically be licensed. I would accept possibly having to acknowledge the licence and IBM's IPR. IBM would still benefit from the defensive aspect of a patent - i.e. no-one else could patent the same ideas and charge IBM for them. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com <mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com> (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com] Sent: 20 April 2002 13:24 To: Dale Moberg Cc: Ebxml-Cppa List Subject: RE: ebXML CPPA BALLOT for Specification version 1.9 Approval (VOTE ENDS April 23) Dear CPP/A Colleagues, Having followed the discussions on the CPP/A 1.9 Specification as carefully as I can I vote FOR - to accept the specification Note: I was half way through composing a message voting against based on the IPR issue, but the mail from Marty has satisfied one of my two alternatives that would allow me to vote positively. I fully accept that Marty Sachs is in no way to blame and I respect and commend IBM for disclosing at this point rather then only after many have implemented - and we should not shoot the messenger. I trust the mail messages will be followed through. So my thanks as well to Marty, Bob Sutor and others involved behind the scenes, I am sure, in resolving this issue speedily. I now hope we can equally speedily unwind the damage to the perception some people have of ebXML (and its component parts). Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com <mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com> (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Sent: 16 April 2002 18:23 To: Himagiri Mukkamala; David Fischer; Arvola Chan; Yukinori Saito; brian.hayes@commerceone.com; James Bryce Clark; Peter Ogden; David Smiley; Malu, Pallavi G; Kartha, Neelakantan; rweida@hotmail.com; kevin.liu@sap.com; Dale Moberg; mwsachs@us.ibm.com; Jean Zheng; selim.aissi@intel.com; tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com; pete@seebeyond.com Subject: ebXML CPPA BALLOTfor Specification version 1.9 Approval (VOTE ENDS April 23) It has been proposed and accepted to vote on whether to approve and publish the April 19 version of the ebXML CPPA specification (to be versioned as 1.9) as a Technical Committee specification. Your reply to this ballot will be your vote. Indicate in your reply concerning the motion to accept and publish the specification as version 1.9 that you are either: FOR - to accept the specification OR AGAINST - to reject the specification. by April 23, 2002, 12 midnight Pacific Daylight Time. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC