RE: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

I have received requests for changes from Dave and Dan. Because of my
work load, I am unable to accomodate requests to type in changes or
revise drafts. Please confer between yourselves, generate a finalized
revised draft, and post it for comments. Until such changes are
received and approved, regrettably there is no finalized document to
present to the Board. Thank you.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action
> From: "D. Greenwood" <dazza@media.mit.edu>
> Date: Wed, March 14, 2007 1:02 pm
> To: "James Bryce Clark"
> <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>,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" <dazza@media.mit.edu>
> 
> In addition to John's comments, I think it would be more accurate to say that while tc does not desire to make more substantive changes due to fatigue with a many year process, we are still prepared to accept some changes as needed and to refer others to future efforts of other TC's. That is why we seek the extension - otherwise, we would not need an extension if we merely intended to "politely process any comments".  So, please change that.  
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:58:28 
> 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>
> Subject: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action
> 
>    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