No apologies needed, that was, and continues to be, my concern -
there has been a steady deterioration in the amount of information
accessible to non-board members through the board agendas. Documents
that should be member accessible prior to, and after, Board
meetings, are not linked to them; that's understandable if they are
HR or legal documents, but there is no reason for this to be so in
other cases. Perhaps at some point the Board should re-consider its
approach to transparency and openness.
Regarding this particular case, I am not in complete agreement with
the statement that a waiver to a provision in the IPR policy does
not constitute in fact a change to the IPR policy. In a very subtle
way it does, inasmuch as it establishes a precedent that can be used
subsequently to justify other waivers without much discussion.
While I understand the desire for a quick(er) resolution to this
issue so that the Candidate Specification can move forward, perhaps
the Board should undertake a review of the IPR policy to address the
issue of government owned copyright and trademarks as opposed to
commercially owned copyright and trademarks, as well as perhaps
providing some parameters for the issuance of waivers. Just
saying... (And yes, obviously in some cases it is difficult to
figure out where a government ends and a commercial entity begins,
but that's what the IPR committee is there for, isn't it?)
Thank you for your attention,
Eduardo Gutentag
On 03/29/2016 10:13 AM, Peter F Brown
wrote:
I
think Eduardo's concern is as much about the availability of
information on the issue to be discussed, as about the actual
item up for discussion.
We obviously discussed this in detail already at our face to
face in Los Angeles a couple of weeks' back and agreed to hold
the follow up meeting to finalize our position as a Board but
subscribers to the Board Agenda mailing list won't have been
party to that information.
Apologies, Eduardo, if I'm being too presumptive about your
concern.
Regards,
Peter
Sent via my phone. Apologies for brevity - it's not easy
writing on a moving planet.
---------- Forwarded message
----------
From: Scott McGrath <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Your recent inquiry re Board agenda
To: Eduardo Gutentag < egutentag@gmail.com>,
board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
" board-exec@lists.oasis-open.org"
< board-exec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi Eduardo,
The Board agenda item you noticed focuses on how we
address a fairly unique situation with the CTI
Committee, it does not change OASIS policies.
Following is a general explanation of the situation,
the specific non-exclusive license agreement with DHS
which the board will consider, and hopefully approve, is
attached.
OASIS rules require that any trademarks used in a
specification contribution be turned over to OASIS.
When launching the cybersecurity info-sharing
standards STIX, TAXII and CybOX at OASIS last year,
the principal contributor U.S. DHS was not immediately
able to provide a complete transfer, so OASIS agreed
to a nonexclusive trademark license, subject to the
board's review and waiver. Approval of their TC's
candidate Committee Specifications is on hold pending
the resolution of that issue, Staff is asking the
Board to accept the nonexclusive license arrangement,
as a waiver to the trademark assignment rule, by
providing equivalent insurances that implementers and
users will have all the same rights that they normally
enjoy. There will be a single remaining exception
barring use of the trademarked spec names in a
commercial product trademark, but this is a
restriction OASIS has previously accepted in other
appropriate cases. We also plan to ask DHS to explore
completing a full assignment to OASIS in the future.
Thanks for asking,
Scott...
--
--
|