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-sc] LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action

Just so that there is no confusion, I think procedurally we advanced a
little further than Jamie has sketched out. Dan provided a letter; the
Steering Committee reviewed and endorsed the request, and I agreed to
change the wording of the first paragraph and make other minor changes
to reflect these events and to sign the endorsement. Dan authorized the
electronic signature, and I affixed my signature, both by typing our

The letter is annexed for review by all and unless timely objected to by
Dan or Dave or anyone else on the SC, it should be submitted to the
Board as the submission of the eContracts TC as endorsed by the SC.

Best regards.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [legalxml-sc] LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board
> action
> From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> Date: Wed, March 14, 2007 10:58 am
> To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org, 
> legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org,  Patrick Gannon
> <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org>
> Cc: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,  'John Messing'
> <jmessing@law-on-line.com>, Dazza Greenwood <dazza@media.mit.edu>
> Hello all.  This confirms our discussion at the LegalXML MS 
> Steering Committee meeting this morning.
>    Dan, as chair of the LegalXML e-Contracts TC, has informed us 
> that the committee wishes to be permitted to continue to operating 
> until 1 May 2007, two weeks past its scheduled closure date, as 
> described in the draft letter below.  Note, no IPR transition would 
> occur, and this waiver requires OASIS Board action under our IPR 
> Transition Policy.  In my words, the TC's intent is to permit a 
> brief response period, in order for the TC to politely process any 
> comments (as yet unreceived) to the current Public Review [1], prior 
> to a final expected approval of the Committee Specification.
>    As I understand it, the Steering Committee endorsed this request, 
> and John Messing & Dan Greenwood will collaborate on a finalized 
> letter to be sent to Patrick Gannon for Board consideration by 
> Friday morning 16 March.  (That target would allow consideration of 
> the request as an action item by the Board at its March meeting.)
>    Open action items are:
>    1. Dan & Dave to send us a notice (or minutes) of the TC's 
> decision to make that request.
>    2. John & Dan to send letter to Patrick.
>    3. Patrick to add to Board agenda.
> If I missed anything, please reply to the addressees on this message 
> with a correction.  Thanks.
>    Regards  Jamie
> ~ James Bryce Clark
> ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
> ~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
> [1] PR ending 27 March:
>    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200701/msg00013.html
> Winters, Roger wrote:
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel J. Greenwood [mailto:dang@media.mit.edu] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:58 AM
> > To: John Messing; Winters, Roger
> > Cc: Dave Marvit
> > Subject: Please add this to Steering Commiittee agenda...
> > 
> > Hi John and Roger,
> > 
> > Dave asked me to send you our TC request for your consideration (he'll
> > be on the call, but could not send it from the road).  We're asking, as
> > a TC, that the SC request a short contingent extension on IP transition
> > for our TC so we can finish our spec on time and with no needless
> > hassle.  We believe it won't be needed (we can finish and close before
> > the deadline if there are no substantive changes needed based on
> > comments).  We have no comments yet and expect none to come.  This is a
> > preventative measure.
> > 
> > Please phone me in (I'm around next 30 mins or so) if you'd like
> > background or just to say hi :-)
> > 
> > Thanks and I hope you are both well,
> > 
> >  - Dan G
> > 
> > Mr Patrick Gannon
> > President and CEO
> > OASIS Open
> > 
> > Dear Patrick,
> > OASIS LegalXML Steering Committee on Behalf of the eContracts TC (TC)
> > OASIS IPR Transition Policy - Request for extension of time to
> > transition under clause 10
> > The eContracts TC's draft eContracts specification was released by OASIS
> > for public review on 27 January 2007. As you may be aware, this is the
> > culmination of a difficult and lengthy process by the TC which everyone
> > expected would be completed many months earlier.
> > It is the intention of all active TC members that the TC will be
> > dissolved as soon as the TC votes on a resolution to adopt the draft as
> > a Committee Specification. All active TC members have confirmed this
> > intention. The reason for this is that the TC consists of members with a
> > range of interests. The TC as a whole is not in a position to actively
> > promote the specification. The current specification is intended to be a
> > foundation on which other groups may build further works. To do this, it
> > will be necessary to create new TCs with wider representation from
> > particular market segments.
> > The public review period for the draft specification will end on about
> > 28 March 2007. A likely process after the end of that period is as
> > follows:
> > 1. TC considers responses - 1 week
> > 2. TC makes changes to specification and agrees to changes - 2 weeks
> > 3. If changes are material, the specification is sent to OASIS for
> > further public comment - 1 week
> > 4. Further public review period - 2 weeks
> > 5. TC meets to approve Committee specification - 1 week.
> > This scenario indicates that the TC may need to continue for around 7
> > weeks after the end of the public review period to complete its work if
> > it considers that material changes are required after the current public
> > review period, i.e., to around 15 May 2007. To allow some leeway, the TC
> > should expect to complete is work no later than 31 May. The TC sincerely
> > hopes this will not be necessary and that it will be able to vote on its
> > specification immediately after the public review period. However, it
> > would like to ensure that it can finalise its work to the desired
> > standard.
> > Clause 10 the IPR Transition Policy, provides as follows:
> > "10. Existing TCs that reach the threshold but do not have a successful
> > Transition Approval Ballot may continue operating under the old IPR
> > Policy for as long as it takes them to complete all their deliverables,
> > or until two (2) years have passed since the effective date of the IPR
> > Policy, whichever comes first. Otherwise they will be closed by the TC
> > Administrator. Any exceptions to this must be approved by the OASIS
> > Board of Directors, whose decision is final."
> > It is our understanding that the period of two years after the effective
> > date will end on 15 April 2007.
> > The TC has not commenced a transition to the new IPR rules. The TC did
> > not initiate an IPR transition because until as late as December 2006 it
> > expected to be able to complete all work before 15 April and disband.
> > The TC asks the Board to approve an exception to the IPR transition
> > policy for the eContracts TC under clause 10 to allow the TC to continue
> > until 31 May 2007 and complete its work.
> > The grounds on which the TC makes this request are: (a) The TC's work is
> > essentially complete. The only work that the TC intends to do is to
> > finalise its specification by considering responses to the 60 day public
> > review. Following a vote on its specification, the TC will be
> > dissolved.
> > (b) All relevant IP contributions have been made by TC members and will
> > be governed by the terms of the old IPR rules on which they were
> > originally made, not the new rules. The IPR rules governing the
> > specification will not change unless new contributions are made. The TC
> > cannot foresee any circumstance under which any new material
> > contributions will be made.
> > (c) The thrust of the new IPR rules is to deal with patents. There are
> > no patents involved with the eContracts specification, at least as far
> > as members are concerned. Elkera Pty Ltd contributed the body of the
> > eContracts schema and asserted copyright interests only. Elkera has
> > stated that it does not assert any patent rights in respect of the
> > contributed work. The TC is not aware of any new relevant contribution
> > that could be governed by a patent right.
> > (d) Some TC members are corporate members who may not be able to deal
> > with the necessary issues within the time available. There are no good
> > reasons to ask them to consider the issues involved in choosing a new IP
> > mode for the work of this TC.
> > In summary, an IPR transition for this TC would only cause inconvenience
> > and have no impact on the results of the TC's work for OASIS or users of
> > the TC's specification. The TC submits that an extension of the cut-off
> > date for the IPR transition rules for this TC will facilitate the
> > completion of a high quality specification by the TC and have no adverse
> > impact on any person.
> > Yours ##sincerely/truly
> > John Messing, Esq.
> > OASIS LegalXML SC Chair
> > Daniel Greenwood, Esq.
> > eContracts TC Chair


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