OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oasis-charter-discuss message

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

Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

Many thanks Orit
Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM Forum, ITU-T etc.. and  working closely with them to get requirements from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND and as such this make the flow of information between the OASIS SOA TC and the other SDO more fluid.

From: Orit Levin [mailto:oritl@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:32 PM
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

I am aware of an explicit discussion that did take place at the convener call and I am happy to summarize on this list why we think that the RAND mode of operation for this particular TC (SOA-TEL) is the most appropriate way to go:

1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases and scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and vendors working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with RAND to contribute to the discussion.

These are the reasons why, in our view, RAND will make SOA-TEL TC work more open, inclusive, and efficient.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Ms. Orit Levin  |  Senior Standards Program Manager  |  Entertainment & Devices Division  |  Microsoft Corporation

oritl@microsoft.com  |  V: +1 425 722 2225  |  F: +1 425 936 7329

From: Dennis E. Hamilton [dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:09 AM
To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

There is a very odd boilerplate response in how some Charter comments are
addressed.  I'm sure it does not go without notice, but I'm going to call it
out anyhow.

When someone says "I do not understand why this needs to be done under RAND
mode," to say "RAND is a valid OASIS IPR mode" is completely unresponsive.
It should be assumed that the questioner already knows that. The question
being asked is "Why is RAND mode adopted as opposed to one of the
more-lenient and predictable OASIS IPR modes?"

To beg the question in this way is simply confirming the fears of those who
ask concerning unspoken agendas and intentions to (reserve the right to)
extract royalties.

This response can continue to be used, but at some point forthrightness and
transparency would seem to be a preferable approach to creating a charter
where any sort of broad participation/adoption and support for adoption as
an eventual OASIS Standard is the objective. If the convener and proposers
are simply hedging their bets, they should maybe grow up and say it like it
is, even biting the bullet and make a solid declaration -- there is IP that
will be asserted or there is and it will be RF on RAND or even RF on Limited
Terms.  If the potential IP is speculative, commit about that up front so
others understand what they are walking into and freely contributing into if
they choose to do that.

 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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