RE: [id-cloud] RE: ID-Cloud material to ITU

Tony

Where did you get the decision that we need this to happen. Who did ask about it from the ITU side?

We always send an LS with a reference to the OASIS work and asked the receiving SDO to take note of our work.

We have had great examples of great work with the ITU without imposing extra rules and regulation on the OASIS side or the ITU side.

In addition, I do not think the TC can change OASIS IPR rules.

Jamie, can the TC change the IPR rules on its Notes?

Regards

Abbie

From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:29 PM
To: Barbir, Abbie; Jamie Clark; id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org; anil.saldhana@redhat.com
Subject: RE: ID-Cloud material to ITU

IPR would change

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Barbir, Abbie
Sent: 4/17/2012 8:26 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Jamie Clark; id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org; anil.saldhana@redhat.com
Subject: RE: ID-Cloud material to ITU

Make use cases a standard? Why?

Making them a standard what would it change?

Regards

From: id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Barbir, Abbie; Jamie Clark; id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org; anil.saldhana@redhat.com
Subject: [id-cloud] RE: ID-Cloud material to ITU

Abbie, Jamie quoted OASIS policy and as it states other SDO really can't use the the OASIS notes they can be aware of them.

So we can elect to make them a standard or ask that TC be allowed to change the IPR on OASIS notes.

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Barbir, Abbie
Sent: 4/17/2012 5:43 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Jamie Clark; id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org; anil.saldhana@redhat.com
Subject: RE: ID-Cloud material to ITU

I do agree with Jamie’s analysis.

We have had (and continue to have) excellent collaboration with ITU-T using LS statements that exchanged documents and kept parties aware of what each SDO is doing. ITU-T can reference the cloud TC material if it needs to and then progress its work. The work item that was started at the ITU-T under Q10/17 ( and then sent to Q8/17) did not assume that it needs direct access to the OASIS work, but it was intended to reference it.

Regards

Abbie

From: id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:11 AM
To: Jamie Clark; id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org; anil.saldhana@redhat.com
Subject: [id-cloud] RE: ID-Cloud material to ITU

So this does not seem to be the best outcome, as this requires other SDO to accept the fact that they have to rework the document enough to avoid the IRP issues, seems like more work than most SDOs will accept, so it seems that this is not keeping with the intent of the charter. Maybe this is something that can be revisited on a TC basis.

From: Jamie Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:28 PM
To: id-cloud@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org; anil.saldhana@redhat.com; Anthony Nadalin
Subject: ID-Cloud material to ITU

Some members asked whether a particular Committee Note Draft from our ID-Cloud TC** can be shared with ITU-T's Study Groups 13 and 17. The ITU planning group for this work meets shortly; some OASIS members who work in both groups would like confirmation that the OASIS TC material also may be reviewed in their ITU work.

** Cloud Use Cases Version 1.0, Committee Note Draft 01 dated 27 June 2011 (CND01) (http://docs.oasis-open.org/id-cloud/IDCloud-usecases/v1.0/cnd01/IDCloud-usecases-v1.0-cnd01.pdf)

Obviously, there should be no problem in encouraging ITU experts to review the TC's work. It also should not be a problem if ITU produces inventories of use cases that include and cross-cite to the ID-Cloud TC use cases.

We do need to make sure that both OASIS and ITU rules for intellectual property are honored. Both sets of rules exist to make sure that our communities can develop and publish with clear understandings about various rights and claims that may arise in it. Comments from the TC members are welcome: Here's what we are doing.

We're bound by the OASIS IPR Policy. So we can freely permit and welcome ITU review of, and making any normative or nonnormative references they choose to, the TC's work. However, as a "Committee Note" or "Committee Note Draft", the TC's work will not carry any licensing assurances under our IPR Policy, and is not eligible for "submission" to ITU for purposes of being approved elsewhere. This is because the committee elected to use a class of work that is excluded from our Liaison Policy on submissions.

The most important purpose of the ID-Cloud TC, and its value to the community (from my perspective), has been to identify and share information on use cases where cloud standards are needed. So it would be pretty silly to discourage this plan. We have a long-standing and positive cooperation with ITU, and we're happy to see them thinking about the cloud standards issues raised by your TC's report.

The TC also has an interest in being sure that its work is used in its final form, and that drafts are not misrepresented as complete. We noted that the TC repository contains an apparently updated version (CNPRD02) at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/45609/IDCloud-usecases-v1.0-cnprd02.zip. So that's what we will advise the ITU panel to reference.

ITU-T has its own rules as well. I'm not sure what their own rules would imply about work that is re-printed, versus referenced by URL. (Bear in mind that, at OASIS, one can post any link to a document to any TC list ... but if the written work itself is appended to the list as an attachment, that act is taken to be a contribution with licensing consequences.) So we'll rely on their staff to get that right,

Obviously, as OASIS, we also selfishly hope to see some of the use case work (which is identified as future needed standardization) occur within OASIS. Something for us to discuss further with the TC and its members.

We'll confirm to the ITU-T secretariat that we have no objection to members pointing ITU to OASIS TC work generally -- after all, it's in an open repository. We'll reference the current draft (CNPRD02), and essentially give them reprint permission. We do that routinely in other appropriate instances as well. That will include the right to take the OASIS TC use case summary material, along with a link to the OASIS source, and include it in their own roll-up tables of inventories of proposed use cases from multiple organizations.

We will caution the Secretariat, in our note, that no license rights beyond that are or can be explicitly granted, as we hold no rights from our members to convey more, for artifacts of this class (CN). (Also, by pointing to the OASIS URL, a reader will land on our document, which contains its own appropriate warnings about what rights are and aren't assured, and how final a draft is or isn't.) It's our understanding that any derivations or changes that ITU wishes to make from such material, beyond the summary lists/reprints, necessarily would done under their own intellectual property practices, not under any sort of license or permission from OASIS.

Regards Jamie

James Bryce Clark, General Counsel
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark

www.identi.ca/JamieXML
www.twitter.com/JamieXML
http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml
http://www.slideshare.net/jamiexml
http://facebook.com/oasis.open

This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited.
Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as required by law.
The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.

References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you consent to the foregoing.

id-cloud message