OASIS Charter Submission Discuss

  • 1.  SOA-Tel Comment Resolution log

    Posted 11-17-2008 01:15
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    convenor-call.pdf   42 KB 1 version


  • 2.  Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

    Posted 11-17-2008 18:10 
    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


  • 3.  Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

    Posted 11-17-2008 18:47 
    I will second this position.

Perhaps the OASIS IPR boiler-plate should be changed to reflect
that the default policy should be RF, and that the proposers of
a charter should answer (with something more meaningful than the
stock answer) why they have chosen to adopt another IPR method
if they do not use the default.

Let the "standards" market decide before the TC is convened if a
given technology is worth standardizing despite the assertions of
IP by some players.

Arshad Noor
StrongAuth, Inc.

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>


  • 4.  Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

    Posted 11-17-2008 18:57 
    I will second Arshad's enhanced position to Dennis' original position. 
Transparency in the standards process should be cultivated from the very 
beginning of a new standard. Thank you both for raising this important 
issue.

Arshad Noor wrote:
> I will second this position.
>
> Perhaps the OASIS IPR boiler-plate should be changed to reflect
> that the default policy should be RF, and that the proposers of
> a charter should answer (with something more meaningful than the
> stock answer) why they have chosen to adopt another IPR method
> if they do not use the default.
>
> Let the "standards" market decide before the TC is convened if a
> given technology is worth standardizing despite the assertions of
> IP by some players.
>
> Arshad Noor
> StrongAuth, Inc.
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> 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:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com


  • 5.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPRComments

    Posted 11-19-2008 17:32 
    




    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:
    
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


  • 6.  RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

    Posted 11-19-2008 17:36 
    






    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.
    

     
    

    Cheers
    

    Abbie
    

     

    

    

    
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:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


Related Content