LegalXML ECF TC charter draft changes

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

   John, Tom and committee members:  Thanks again for your work to 
update your plans for this technical committee, as well as your work 
on open standards for legal documents generally.  Apologies for only 
being able to respond in time for the second day of your current 
meetings.

   It looks to me like you will be able to accompish all, or 
substantially all, of the goals expressed in your proposed draft 
charter changes.  Here are the necessary steps.

   Background.
   OASIS rules are careful with charters, as they form both the TC's 
work plan, and the outer boundaries of the licensing commitment of 
TC members.  OASIS rules provide two ways to modify an existing TC's 
charter: a minor "clarification", which permits updates to 
deliverable lists, but not changes to the "scope" (the functional 
areas the TC will address) under section 2.11 of our rules;  and a 
major "rechartering", which permits most anything but an IPR mode 
change.
   Approval of either requires a 15-day web ballot of the TC run by 
OASIS staff (the TC Administrator, Mary McRae, copied here) and a 
supermajority in favor, equal to that required to approve a final 
Committee Specification.
   (Please note that the latter, major change can expand the scope 
of TC members' obligations to offer licenses (under the OASIS IPR 
Policy) to support the TC's approved work, if they claim to hold 
rights in works necessary to its implementation.  For that reason, 
at the conclusion of a 'rechartering', the rules require that input 
work (e.g. ongoing drafts) be re-contributed (usually by a reposting 
to the list) so it's clear they are available under the new, 
broadened scope.  As a practical matter, as your TC has not been 
advised of any burdened TC IPR claims, and all contributed work 
apparently is freely usable, this should not be an obstacle.)

   Next steps.
   It appears your proposed changes *will* be a rechartering, adding 
new functional areas to the TC's planned program of work. Please see 
the notes on those items below, as you have special expertise on the 
meaning of these areas, as to legal-industry-specific technical 
matters.
   If these conclusions re satisfactory, simply indicate to Mary McRae,
my colleague, that she can open the web ballot over any 15-day
period you choose. If not, let's discuss any open points (including
her in that chat).

   Issues to confirm.
   Most of the updated and draft changes seem productive and 
helpful.  The following areas of your latest draft (lifted as 
quotes, here) raise comments that we wanted to share with you before 
you approve and proceed with a TC vote on that draft:

>> 5. sending and receiving payments associated with filings
>> electronically, and

Comment: This appears to be a new function, not present in the prior
charter - thus a reason to use the "rechartering" method of charter
change. If I am wrong, and the 'payments' function somehow
necessarily is subsumed in the prior approved TC charter, feel free
to call that to our attention.

>> 6. providing appropriate security to ensure the
>> confidentiality, authenticity, correctness and completeness of
>> the information transmitted.

Comment: (Same as prior.) This appears to be a new function, not
present in the prior charter - thus a reason to use the
"rechartering" method of charter change. If I am wrong, and the
'security' function somehow necessarily is subsumed in the prior
approved TC charter, feel free to call that to our attention.

>> 6. Develop for release in early 2009 a mapping between the ECF 
>> specification and the PRIA specification for filing deeds,
>> mortgages, liens and other real property instruments

Comment: This is an interesting and laudable project! I note that it
might require PRIA permission, depending on their rights claims, and
what's planned. Or perhaps not - let's discuss at your convenience,
but this issue need not be resolved to enact the charter change.
Also, I note that government-recordable, non-court documents might
originally have been the sort of thing that might be sent to a
*different* LegalXML TC, but of course, such questions are for you
and your community to work out. Finally, again, as with the others
above, this appears to be an expansion of scope, thus guide us to
use a "rechartering" rather than "clarification" ballot.

>> Duration
>> The Technical Committee intends to continue indefinitely, so
>> long as there is a need for the development, refinement, and
>> implementation of XML standards to support electronic filing of
>> court and legal profession documents in the United States and
>> other countries, modifying this Charter from time to time to
>> define new and revised tasks.

Comment: I see no problem with this; but be aware that, to do so,
the Committee will need to refresh its charter list of deliverables
from time to time -- as you;ve stated -- because the rules would
require us to close TCs when their list of planned deliverables
finally is exhausted. Also, separately, I would enjoy a conversation
at some convenient future time about how to increase input from
other non-North-American jurisdictions. We know of several informal,
international users with interest in your work.

>> Officers
>> The Technical Committee has the following officers:
>> - Public and private sector co-chairs

Comment: Please note that, while I see no problem with the ambition
to have balanced leadership, our TC Process requires that TC chairs
be elected in an open election by the full committee -- thus may not
support a mandate of "one public and one private" chairperson, if
multiple qualified candidates with different backgrounds stand for
office and then are elected by the required majority votes.

>> Officers will be elected annually during December of each year,
>> by a majority of those voting members voting, to serve during
>> the following calendar year.  Officers shall serve until their
>> replacements take office.

Comment: Again, our rules do not specify limited officer terms, and
do set a specific procedure for chair removal. Personally I think
it's laudable, though, and I do not believe it's prohibited. The
best way to achieve your goal here probably is to ask each
candidate, at the time of election, to that they are standing for
election only for 12 months, and willing to resign and/or re-run
after 12 months.

   Congratulations on your recent progress as reflected by the 
material posted to the TC site;  best of luck with your meetings, 
and your continued success with this important set of projects.

   Kind regards  JBC

~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark