RE: LegalXML Integ. Justice request for OASIS Board action

["Cabral, James E." <JCabral@mtgmc.com>]

John and David,

We need to tell Jamie and Mary by tomorrow if we want to go ahead with
the IPR transition.  If we do, we need to send them a letter seeking an
extension by Friday.  I have attached a similar letter from the
eContracts TC as an example.

Jamie, the latest version of the MNDR specification is at
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-intjustice/downloa
d.php/14202/gjxdm-ndr-0.4.pdf.  Please note that the IJ TC co-Chairs are
John Ruegg (not Messing) and David Goodwin.

  jim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:25 PM
To: legalxml-intjustice@lists.oasis-open.org;
legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; Patrick Gannon
Cc: Mary McRae; 'John Messing'; dagoodwi@mail.maricopa.gov; Cabral,
James E.
Subject: LegalXML Integ. Justice request for OASIS Board action

   Hello all.  This confirms our discussion at the LegalXML MS Steering
Committee meeting this morning.
   The leadership of the LegalXML Integrated Justice TC has informed us
that the committee wishes to be permitted to continue to operate after
the 15 April 2007 deadline under our IPR Transition Policy.
The Committee has *approved* a "Transition Request Ballot" under that
policy, although it closed on 9 March 2007. Essentially, the TC wishes
us to commence a Transition Approval Ballot in the minimnum allowed time
of 30 days (approximately 15 April 2007), and asks the Board to suspend
the closure of the TC for 28 days thereafter (so that the ballot can
complete and, if successful, the TC Transition Effective Date may
occur). This waiver requires OASIS Board action under our IPR Transition
Policy.
   In my words, the TC's intent (if it takes this course) is to finish
up the previously unexpected task of issuing Naming & Design Rules for
the current GJDXM model, this Spring.  The committee also anticipates
rechartering during the summer, to address planned changes to the
external GJDXM/NIEM (sp?) project.
   However, the Steering Committee also has reserved the possibility
that the TC's chairs will clarify the TC's intent, in the next 24 hours,
either to:
   (a) seek a short extension such as 30 or 60 days after 15 April, to
be followed by closure and later creation of a new TC;  or
   (b) just hold a committee vote to bless the current NDR as a
Committee Draft now in the month, before April 15, forego an extension,
and resume with a new TC in the Autumn;  or
   (c) create a new TC at this time, sad close the existing TC as
scheduled on 15 April;  or,
   (d) a plan of continuous operation between now and the Autumn.
John & David will let us know this week exactly which alternative is
sought (see action items below).

   As I understand it, the Steering Committee endorsed this request,
conditioned on its being finalized by the TC chairs;  and John Messing &
the TC chairs 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. John R./Dave G./Jim C. to confirm back to us, by tomorrow (15
March), whether a specific extension or waiver should be sought from our
Board, and whether Mary should start a 30-day transition approval ballot
notice period tomorrow,.
   2. John R./Dave G./Jim C. to draft a request letter, along the
general lines of the letter from the e-Contracts TC appended below [1],
but with appropriately different facts, and send it to Patrick.
   3. Patrick to add to Board agenda.

Separately, would you confirm to me the URI for the committee's most
current working draft for an NDR for the GJDXM 3.x? I do want us to
point correctly to the artifact, in our discussions with people,
whatever its status.

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

[background:]
> Subject: Fwd: RE: LegalXML IJ TC IPR Transition
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:43:54 -0700
> From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> To: JRuegg@isab.co.la.ca.us,  dagoodwi@mail.maricopa.gov
> CC: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> 
>     John, the transition mode selection process is a multi-step one: 
> It's spelled out in this policy:
>     http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_transition_policy.php
> Your TC vote would have only been the first step (called a "Transition

> Request Ballot") in that policy.  We can proceed, but as previously 
> advised, the timing is late enough that we may not be able to prevent 
> TC closure.  Let's discuss that, and our other conversation about NIEM

> and restarting IJ in the fall, on today's MS Steering Committee call 
> if convenient.  regards Jamie
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Ruegg [mailto:JRuegg@isab.co.la.ca.us]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:04 PM
>> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
>> Cc: dagoodwi@mail.maricopa.gov
>> Subject: RE: [members] Successful IPR Transition for OASIS ebXML 
>> Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement (CPPA) TC
>> 
>> The LegalXML Integrate Justice TC did a ballot which closed last week

>> to transition to the same IPR as the other LegalXML model, 
>> CourtFiling etc.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary 
>> McRae
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:35 PM
>> To: John Ruegg
>> Cc: jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [members] Successful IPR Transition for OASIS ebXML 
>> Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement (CPPA) TC
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>>   I'm not sure which LegalXML TC you're referring to - eNotary and 
>> CourtFiling have both successfully transitioned; I have no other 
>> requests to run Transition Approval Ballots for any of the other 
>> LegalXML TCs. The last day for requests to be received in order to 
>> complete the transition within the deadline was 1 March. Please let 
>> me know if I inadvertently overlooked a request!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Mary

[1][copy of other comparable letter]

> -----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

IPR-EXTENSION-REQUEST.doc