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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

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


Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] ... CPPA Specification ... any IPR Position ...


Thanks, Karl, this was very helpful information.  My comments below.

>CPPA TC members:  To clarify a few things:   Kartha asks if the spec can 
>be withdrawn later, as Dale suggests the TC could do. The answer is Yes. 
>According to the OASIS TC Process, last sentence of the second paragraph 
>of Section 2
>(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#sec2) the TC may 
>withdraw a submitted specification any time before the end of the voting 
>period. Furthermore (fourth paragraph), if any negative votes are cast 
>against the spec the TC may vote to withdraw the spec after voting has ended.

I think the practical difference would be that
(1) Now, it requires a supermajority to advance the standard.  By Dale's 
vote count, two "no" votes would defeat the motion.
(2) Then, on a withdrawal motion, I assume it would take a majority vote 
(11?) to withdraw.
But I am no OASIS rules expert, so anyone should feel free to correct me.

>*** Given sufficient negative votes it would not become an OASIS Standard, 
>but at least it would still be a Committee Specification, which say that 
>the spec is complete and it is implementable.  If the TC decides not to 
>approve the spec, however, we won't have anything that can be called 
>completed, inplementable work.

This is why my suggestion for the outside limit -- of a useful objection -- 
was to vote "YES" for the committee spec and "NO" as an OASIS-wide 
submission for 2Q 2002.  And I would to like to encourage anyone casting a 
"no-no" vote to at least consider changing to the foregoing if they can.

>One final note: submitting the spec to OASIS requires that three OASIS 
>members certify that they have implemented the spec *** [and] the three 
>members must also state that their implementations are in compliance with 
>the IBM license. Is this going to be a problem?

Yipes.  Good catch.  Does anyone know about this one?  Are we considering 
promoting to an OASIS Standard in vain?

~ James Bryce Clark
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.   www.mmiec.com
~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
~ www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/ecommerce/ecommerce.html
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com   jbc@lawyer.com
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.



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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC