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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

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

Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] contracts and TC administrivia

Thanks John,

Not having heard back any confirmation regarding the Hyatt yet or
other opportunities, this seems like a good one to pursue.  We'll take
it up at the leadership meeting.

One thing though - does anybody have an idea how far this hotel is
from the Fairmont?

 - Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: jmessing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:02 PM
To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] contracts and TC administrivia

By private email I notified Dan of a room reservation for the TC
meeting in the Argent Hotel (Science & Tech Law) for Saturday
afternoon's meeting. You might want to put the room arrangement on the
TC leadership's agenda discussion for this evening. I also suggest one
of the leadership confirm with Shawn Kaminski at the earliest

Here is the information. Best regards to all.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Kaminski, Shawn" <SKaminski@staff.abanet.org>
Date:  Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:02:39 -0500

John - the E-Contracts TC - Legal XML meeting has been scheduled from
1 - 4
p.m. on Saturday, August 9th in the Cornell Room (3rd floor) of the
Hotel.  Please let the OASIS folks know that we will bill them back
for the
speaker phone and line charges - I should have a quote on that next

I have not ordered any sodas, just water.  If they want to add
anything else
to the room, let me know a.s.a.p.

Also, OASIS will need to provide a sign for outside the room, if they


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Daniel Greenwood" <dang@mit.edu>
Reply-To: <dang@mit.edu>
Date:  Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:53:51 -0400

>Jason, thanks for that.  My benchmark contracts are (belatedly) on
>way.  I'm just trying to secure permissions from the companies behind
>the contracts.  I'm nearly ready to simply use publicly available
>materials, if needed.
>Also - if any member of the TC has a comment or idea related to the
>workings of our group, I encourage you to e-mail it along today
>because we're having a TC Leadership chat this evening (among the
>chair, co-vice chairs and secretary).  At this meeting we'll go TC
>over progress to date, resource needs for the future, administrative
>planning and any other matters that seem ripe for discussion toward
>the end of maintaining progress toward quality specifications and
>other work products.
>So - ideas and input are welcome.  Bring it on!
> - Dan
>|  Daniel J. Greenwood, Esq.
>|  Director, E-Commerce Architecture Program
>|  MIT School of Architecture and Planning
>|  77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7-231
>|  Cambridge, MA 02139
>|     http://ecitizen.mit.edu
>|     or http://www.civics.com
>|     dang@mit.edu
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Harrop [mailto:jharrop@speedlegal.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:59 AM
>To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Benchmark Contracts . . . Of
>Hi everyone
>I'm attaching a copy of Dan's original benchmark contracts proposal
>17 April.
>IIRC, the TC subsequently adopted the idea that we all submit these.
>I'm writing to remind anyone who would like to submit a benchmark
>contract to please do so.  There are some in the document library
>already, but I suspect the collection is not complete.
>The benchmark contracts are important, since the clause model
>requirements say:
>"3. The clause model must be able to represent the 'benchmark'
>which are submitted by members of the TC and accepted by the TC as in
>Over the next few days I'd like to put together an HTML list of the
>benchmark contracts and who submitted them.
>Contracts can be submitted to the list, or better, put straight into
>document library.  Since we will probably be marking them up, a
>such as HTML, text, RTF/DOC, is preferable over PDF.
>Daniel Greenwood wrote:
>> Dear Fellow eContracts TC Members:
>> I think we can all be pleased with the level of progress made so
>> that which we are poised to make.  As our velocity toward solutions
>> picked up, I have come to appreciate the need for even more simple
>> methods of communicating and demonstrating our work to facilitate
>> collaboration, visual progress metrics and mutual understanding.
>> that spirit, I informally propose the following for consideration.
>> Unless people hate the idea and say so on the list, then I will
>> that we formally consider it as a work method at our next meeting.
>> I propose that each member of this TC submit one "key benchmark
>> contract" and as many additional example contracts as they wish.
>> purpose would be to have a consistent and "real world" canvas to
>> visually articulate our ideas upon.  The TC would use the key
>> contracts when explaining proposed ideas.  This would assure that
>> whatever ideas we are entertaining work for at least the
>> domains of practice represented by members of our TC.  Which this
>may or
>> may not be a statistically significant cross section, I believe
>> at least demonstrates workability in important economic sectors and
>> across knowledge domains.  It also assures that whatever we are
>> about works, at a minimum, for those of us who are donating the
>> equity" into the standards making process.  Finally, it gives us an
>> "apples to apples" method of debating any given proposal and the
>> relative merits and draw backs between competing proposals.
>> I propose that we first use this as a way to demonstrate the
>> (or competing options) prior to a vote on the clause issue (aka,
>> main contract content question).  If there are two or more proposed
>> approaches, then as part of the discussion leading to a vote, TC
>> should be able to see exactly how each would be applied to the
>> contracts to inform their decisions and explicitly debate the
>> merits and problems of each approach.  If there is only one
>> then I still think even that should be put through the test of
>> applied to the benchmark contracts so as to determine that it
>> works in practice" without obvious difficulty - at least in the
>> contractual domains represented by our varied participants.  If it
>> desired to decide "front matter" and "back matter" (e.g.
>> recitals before the clauses, etc) as a second stage, then those
>> proposals would be demonstrated alone upon each benchmark contract
>> in addition to the other structural markup already by then decided.
>> After we have concluded the question of structure (which is itself
>> always revisitable until our final specification vote, depending on
>> other monsters we uncover as we go), then I propose that we express
>> "legal" markup (aka "semantic" markup) applied to the benchmark
>> contracts, as it is conceived and developed and debated and
>> voted upon.  This should be done directly on the content of the
>> contracts, and also (prior to any final decisions) applied
>> in addition to the structural markup and any other markup we have
>> Of course, every mention of an idea need not be rigorously applied
>> all or even one benchmark contract.  That would be too onerous and
>> chill innovation, I believe.  However, to fully understand a new
>idea or
>> proposal once it has been seriously put forward for consideration,
>> will be helpful to apply it to our exemplars.  Similarly, at key
>> decision points (e.g. when contemplating the relative
>merits/problems of
>> amendments to a proposal, when voting on final or competing
>> etc) I think we should go through this process.
>> Finally, I believe that this process will serve as a critical
>> knowledge management for our group in three senses.  First, as
>> mentioned, it will provide a clear, consistent and familiar method
>> communicating and evolving and reaching consensus upon ideas
>> our process - this is efficient.  Second, it will give us a way to
>> visually articulate what we have done and what still remains to be
>> (we can "see" that "the structure is done, but semantics remain",
>> that "the semantics of sequence and revenue recognition are done,
>> dispute resolution and risk allocation remain", etc).  Being able
>> visually situate us within our worksphere should reduce the
>> and risk of tangents.  Third, it will serve as an excellent
>> of the discussions we had, the decision points we reached, the
>> options we considered (and may wish to conveniently revisit later)
>> the ideas we generated.  This is the essence of the digital archive
>> the foundation of a knowledge system.  Those implementing the
>> later, as well as those doing future evolution of the standard,
>> benefit tremendously from a clear, longitudinally consistent
>> of our work.  It makes the impenetrable morass of plain text
>> echo-only conference calls (i.e.: the "minutes") renderable in
>> that downstream thinkers (including ourselves) can actually access
>> use.
>> Finally, I note that Rolly and others (Jim, etc) have already
>> instinctively done this by submitting contracts as exemplars.  This
>> great.  To make the most of it, I think it is best for each TC
>member to
>> pick his or her "key" contract and consistently use that through
>> process.  Additional benchmarking contracts can and will be useful
>> to demonstrate an especially complex structural challenge that does
>> commonly appear in contracts but which we may wish to address via
>> final specification).  But to assure longitudinal consistency for
>> decision making and stationary goal posts, I believe it necessary
>> assure at least one span of "key" metric contracts - hence the word
>> "benchmark".
>> Thanks for consideration of this idea.  In the future, when I have
>> thought ideas out better, I'll be able to communicate them is far
>> words ;-)
>> Best,
>>  - Daniel Greenwood, eContracts TC Chair, OASIS/LegalXML
>> ==============================================
>> |  Daniel J. Greenwood, Esq.
>> |  Director, E-Commerce Architecture Program
>> |  Massachusetts Institute of Technologu
>> |  Media Lab / School of Architecture and Planning
>> |  77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7-231
>> |  Cambridge, MA 02139
>> |     http://ecitizen.mit.edu
>> |     or http://www.civics.com
>> |     dang@mit.edu <mailto:dang@mit.edu>
>> ==============================================
>Jason Harrop
>Mob +61 (0)402 02 66 34
>Tel +61 (0)3 9670 0141
>Fax +61 (0)3 9670 0142
>SmartPrecedent(R) software
>The most intelligent way to create documents
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting

You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting

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