FW: Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Since I did the kick-off of the current discussion (but not its tangent into
Telco RAND preferences), I thought I would bring it to this list for
archival purposes and further recollection. 

I have seen a number of interesting comments, on-list and off-list.  

One question was whether I was objecting to a particular chartering or was
this a general observation.

1. It is a general observation.  I have seen the formulaic response "RAND is
a valid OASIS IPR mode" in more than one instance (possibly in one of its RF
variations too).  

2. It was observing a recurrence of the formula that triggered my reaction,
but I was not reacting in any way with regard to the chartering of that
particular TC and its choice of IPR.  I really was questioning the
non-responsive or dissembling nature of the formulaic response.

I have further observations after seeing some reactions and on-/off-list
discussion, but I shall mull on them a bit longer.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-charter-discuss/200811/msg00008.h
tml 
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:10
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