RE: [legalxml-econtracts] RE: LegalXML eContracts request for OASIS Board action

["Peter Meyer" <pmeyer@elkera.com.au>]

Thank you Dan and John for taking this forward. I notice the reference in
Jamie's email to an extension to 1 May. The request letter refers to 31 May.
It is important we have until 31 May to be sure of completing our
specification.

Regards
Peter 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2007 6:44 AM
> To: dazza@media.mit.edu
> Cc: Mary McRae; James Bryce Clark; 
> legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org; 
> legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; Patrick Gannon
> Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] RE: LegalXML eContracts 
> request for OASIS Board action
> 
> 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-o
pen.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
>