[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Re:
I am on holiday back at ETSI in 16 August and just want to clarify important things:
Everybody wish that we will all collaborate together in the development of TMX, TBX, SRX, GMX-V and xml:tm
This cannot be done in many places, LISA OSCAR voted for ETSI, this decision has been implemented. This is a pity to put this into question, better focus now on collaboration.
FRAND at ETSI is not incompatible with Royalty Free
On 18 August 2011 at ETSI we will hold the first ETSI ISG LIS Meeting ( http://portal.etsi.org/LIS) with adoption of new standards (New Work Items) and liaisons establishment (ISO TC 37, Unicode Consortium TC ULI, TAUS, GALA...) including OASIS. I need you all and OASIS executives in touch with ETSI to witness that the cooperation between Technical Committees is well on going and should be extended to OASIS/TC XLIFF+TC OAXAL with ETSI ISG LIS about Localization Standards TMX, TBX, SRX, GMX-V and xml:tm “freezed” by the closure of LISA (http://www.lisa.org) and the continuity at ETSI in ISG LIS from http://ttt.org/oscarStandards/ :
LISA OSCAR Standards : In March 2011 the Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA) was declared insolvent. As a result LISA’s portfolio of standards has been authorized to be posted under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License that allows for reuse and creation of derivative works based on the LISA standards. Note that LISA has designated the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Localization Industry Standards (LIS) Industry Specification Group (ISG) as its successor organization for its standards portfolio. More information on the position of these standards in the ETSI environment will be available after August 2011.
Our two organisations (ETSI and OASIS) already succeeded in establishing good cooperation (ETSI/ FRAND – OASIS/Royalty Free was not a problem), this seems ignored. We do have OASIS TC XLIFF and TC OAXAL common Stakeholders involved in ETSI ISG LIS, see attached Mind Manager Chart “ETSI ISG LIS v9d.pdf”
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>About Membership, The Membership fee attached “ETSI Membership fees 2011ContriForm.pdf” says: “SMEs, Micro-Enterprises, user and trade associations, and university and public research bodies come under class 1”
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>SMEs, user & trade associations => 6 000€
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Universities, public research bodies and not-for-profit user associations => 2 000€
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Micro-Enterprises => 3 000€
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>If you want to FREELY (0 Euros) access the ETSI ISG LIS mailing list and its web archives, just sign the Participant agreement. The fees are only 100 Euros per delegate, per day and this only for *optional* face-to-face meetings and only for non-ETSI Members who signed the ETSI ISG LIS Participant Agreement”
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>ETSI and OASIS are already collaborating and the wish of the stakeholders on next 18 August 2011 is to extend this to ETSI ISG LIS and OASIS TC XLIFF and TC OAXAL. This is like ISO TC 37 and Unicode Consortium TC ULI. The members will decide and implement their choice.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>ISG Group Specification/GS are ETSI Deliverables in the ETSI Catalogue, freely downloadable like any Technical Specification or Technical Report. The quality and reputation is in the legitimacy of the Institution, the group and on the scale of adoption. This is true for OASIS TC XLIFF, LISA OSCAR SIG and for ETSI ISG LIS. About “standards” and definition see our ETSI Directives (*).
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Yes ETSI has a unique IPR Policy (FRAND) but, in short (**), Royalty Free is a subset of FRAND (when all decide that Fair = Free) when all stakeholders like here in ETSI ISG LIS are reforming their OSCAR community. Yes for new standards there could be Intellectual Property declarations but not on TMX, TBX, SRX, GMX-V and xml:tm as long as all stakeholders wish to continue so. Yes it is question of trust and transparency. I invite you all to freely join ETSI ISG LIS existing Members and Participants and ensure this and to effectively enforce it. This is your ISG, see in attachment the latest Mind Manager chart of stakeholders “ETSI ISG LIS v9d.pdf”.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>This is not an “ETSI” tool please, nor a beauty contest, this is a large group of people coming from LISA OSCAR who reform their group at ETSI in a group set up by them for their cooperation.
(*) ETSI Directives definitions
11 "STANDARD" shall mean any standard adopted by ETSI including options therein or amended versions and shall include European Standards (ENs), ETSI Standards (ESs), Common Technical Regulations (CTRs) which are taken from ENs and including drafts of any of the foregoing, and documents made under the previous nomenclature, including ETSs, I-ETSs, parts of NETs and TBRs, the technical specifications of which are available to all MEMBERS, but not including any standards, or parts thereof, not made by ETSI.
The date on which a STANDARD is considered to be adopted by ETSI for the purposes of this POLICY shall be the date on which the technical content of that STANDARD was available to all MEMBERS.
12 "TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION" shall mean any Technical Specification (TS) adopted by ETSI including options therein or amended version including drafts, the Technical Specifications of which are available to all MEMBERS, but not including any technical specifications, or parts thereof, not made by ETSI.
The date on which a TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is considered to be adopted by ETSI for the purposes of this POLICY shall be the date on which the technical content of that TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION was available to all MEMBERS.
3 Operation of Industry Specification Groups
3.1 Characteristics of an Industry Specification Group
The need has been identified for Industry Specification Groups to exist alongside the current Technical Organization supplementing the existing standards development process. An Industry Specification Group, supported by Working Groups where appropriate, is an activity organized around a set of ETSI work items addressing a specific technology area.
An Industry Specification Group:
● is established on the initiative of any group of, at least four, ETSI members (or applicant members) making a request to the Director-General;
● has its own programme/project management for internal priority-setting, and agreed delivery dates for its results;
● is responsible for defining, creating and stopping detailed ETSI work items (as defined in clause 3.6), within its scope, that are required to fulfil its Terms of Reference;
● is responsible for the validation of ETSI deliverables of type "Group Specification" only (i.e. ensuring that the deliverable can be fully implemented, providing the intended level of functionality and performance at minimum cost, as defined in the scope of the related ETSI work item);
(**) About FRAND –Royalty Free
“Please be informed that the concept of the Industry Specification Groups (ISG) in ETSI exists alongside the current Technical Organization, supplementing the existing standards development process.
On this basis, the ISGs are still run under the concepts / rules of the ETSI Directives. In particular, it is foreseen that the ETSI IPR Policy applies to the specifications that are produced by the ISG. As the ETSI IPR Policy doesn’t foresee the possibility that members participating in a group decide to allow only patents to be included that will be granted under a Royalty Free basis, this will likewise not be possible in an ISG.
Therefore, according to the ETSI IPR Policy, the members participating in the ISG are obliged to disclose their essential IPR in a timely fashion and they need to clarify by providing an irrevocable undertaking whether they are willing to irrevocably grant such potentially essential IPR on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions (RF is a subset of FRAND).
Notwithstanding, please note that from our point of view, ETSI Standards and Technical Specification are truly open standards and the fact that the ISG will need to apply the ETSI IPR Policy shouldn’t be a blocking issue, in particular as there isn’t an automatism that there are essential patents to all Technical Specifications and that patent holders, who have actually declared their patents as being essential with a FRAND undertaking ask for royalties.
On this basis, I hope that the work done in the ETSI Industry Specification Group LIS will be a success for all participating companies and representatives.
ETSI Legal Affairs Director”
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Dear Patrick, thanks for forwarding the information about OASIS and ETSI liaison relationship. BTW there is no mention of language technology, not sure if it is important, perhaps just worth noting.
However, I do not agree that the pdf and table you provided could possibly be understood as rectification of information I provided in the E3 session on Localization World in Barcelona or in the message http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201107/msg00004.html. E.g. I never ever told anyone that ETSI ISGs are the same as ETSI TCs; neither it is suggested by my comparison slide. [BTW only ETSI TCs are technically speaking able to produce ETSI standards. ETSI ISGs are easier to form and join but can only produce Group Specifications, but this is probably only a minor point..]
You changed several entries in the table I provided and present the information without context. The context was the comparison of ETSI with three other standardization bodies, including W3C, Unicode, and OASIS. I maintain that ETSI mailing lists are *restricted*, because I cannot access their contents without becoming ETSI member or ISG participant, unlike in the case of the other quoted organizations. I did not call the lists of the other orgs "free", I rather called them "public", which they are and which the ETSI lists plainly are not, which you admitted in Barcelona, so I really wonder what you want to rectify here..
In column 4, I provided links to full membership fees overviews for each of the organizations. So replacing this link with the information about the low cost option only is deliberately misleading.
Finally it is not true that the full membership fees that I listed in column 5 are not relevant for people joining ISG LIS. Whoever will want to join the ISG LIS with full rights will need to become member at the cost I indicated in columns 4 and 5 (column 5 holding obviously just illustrative although representative numbers in the sense that it can be less or more in case of all quoted orgs based on specific rules referenced in column 4) [Anyway, Janaina confirmed to me in Barcelona that WhP are paying this exact amount].
The low cost options without voting rights are being compared in columns 8 and 9. So your 'rectification' basically consists in replicating the low cost information for ETSI in all columns. I admit that the ISG LIS decided not to have proportional voting, so that the proportionality only comes as members having votes and participants not, which technically can be considered equal voting.
I am glad that you do not deny the FRAND only IPR policy of ETSI. Finally, you probably did not mean to say that there is a no-cost-option to join ETSI TCs, as your table seems to be implying in column 8..
As an employee of ETSI secretariat, you are of course in a position to inform about ETSI as ETSI and you see fit, but please do not call it rectification of information I provided. I am happy to explain to anyone including you, as I hope I just did, that the information I had provided is accurate and relevant.
Thanks for your attention and best regards
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:30, Patrick Guillemin <Patrick.Guillemin@etsi.org> wrote:
This email has been sent to: David.Filip@ul.ie ; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
[cf http://portal.etsi.org/LIS to freely join the ETSI ISG LIS list & sign the ETSI ISG LIS Participant Agreement for non-ETSI Members] LIS_ISG Subscribers are listed in attached chart “ETSI ISG LIS v9d.pdf”
Like I already did at LocWorld in Barcelona (E3 session) to David Filip ETSI Technical Committees/TCs are not the same as ETSI Industry Specification Groups/ISGs. I would like to rectify the ETSI entry about ETSI ISG LIS in the table provided by Dr. David Filip as follow:
(Attached “5July2011 Possible Homes for Language Technology related standards - rectification.pdf”)
On 18 August 2011 ETS ISG LIS Stakehodlers will discuss all liaisons, including the extension of existing liaisons with OASIS in TC XLIFF and TC OAXAL. Common ETSI-OASIS Stakeholders will care of this and on my side, ETSI Secretariat will care of all needed procedures.
Our two organisations (ETSI and OASIS) already succeeded in establishing good cooperation:
ETSI ISG LIS v9d.pdf
ETSI Membership fees 2011ContriForm.pdf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]