OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Good morning, and best wishes for a happy holiday & New Year season
for everyone.

I assist the consortium with matters relating to liaisons and
submissions to other standards organizations.  As we've already
successfully submitted ODF v1.0 2d. ed. to ISO/IEC JTC1, I am
following with interest the TC's plans for issuing and sequencing its
future releases.   Monday's agenda includes plans to discuss the
disposition of ODF v1.2, and a second possible v1.0 errata, so I plan
to attend and listen.

Let me offer some comments about current OASIS liaison policies, and
the state of our collaboration with JTC1.

As you may know, last year, OASIS received substantial feedback on our
versioning and maintenance policies.  We revised its Liaison Policy
(which governs our outside submissions like PAS) in response.  A
significant factor in that work was concern from the global community
that, once OASIS has entered into a collaborative project with
parallel approvals (like OASIS's ODF and ISO/IEC 23600), it is
important that the two threads remain in sync, throughout the lifetime
of the work.  Among other things, OASIS ODF v1.1, which brought the
2005-06 version up to 2008, and added some desirable features, was a
cause for some concern.  The community implementing 26300 might see
itself as left behind, if the OASIS TC does not send the final v1.1
version to JTC1 as an update that also may be made to 26300.

Our revised Liaison Policy
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork)
addresses those issues in several ways.

1.  Submissions of new works from a TC still follow the same
approximate path as was previously in place;  a few of the criteria
have been modified.  This is the path taken by the original ODF v1.0.
Sections 1-4 of the submissions rules describe it.  The rules give the
TC the primary role in submission decisions.

2.  Errata now are subject to a shorter path.  Under Section 5(a) of
the submissions rules, once an initial submission (like 26300) has
been approved, OASIS automatically will send any later Approved Errata
to the receiving organization (like JTC1).  No TC vote is required.
This automatic rule was based in part on our experience with ODF v1.0
2d ed.  So, the TC should be aware that, when it develops future
errata, there will be an obvious question about its status, and the
use or choice not to use OASIS's fast-track "Approved Errata" process
(under our TC Process rules).

3.  Similarly, we now have a special rule in place for future
versions.  Under Section 5(b) of the submissions rules, once an
initial submission (like ODF v1.0 2d ed.) has been approved, the TC
should express its desire about submissions of the future versions,
but OASIS retains the right to make an executive decision about future
versions (like v1.1 or 1.2).  This is because a receiving organization
(like JTC1) may feel that we have committed to keep their parallel
version current; and OASIS may need to act to fulfill those
commitments.

In this case, I have a concern that the ODF TC still has not acted to
prepare v1.1 for JTC1 receipt.  Any attempt to provide v1.2 to them
might be considered out of sequence, or encounter other difficulties,
if v1.1 is not first provided as was expected.  I'm happy to discuss
this with the TC, if wished.

Kind regards JBC

~ James Bryce Clark
~ General Counsel, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark

James,

On 12/21/09 15:36, James Bryce Clark wrote:
> In this case, I have a concern that the ODF TC still has not acted to
> prepare v1.1 for JTC1 receipt.  Any attempt to provide v1.2 to them
> might be considered out of sequence, or encounter other difficulties,
> if v1.1 is not first provided as was expected.  I'm happy to discuss
> this with the TC, if wished.

Thank you very much for sharing your concerns with us, and for joining
yesterdays TC call.

I have several questions related to a submission of ODF 1.1 to JTC1.
Some of them have been mentioned yesterday already, some of them are new:

1. It is my understanding that ODF 1.1 would become an amendment of
ISO/IEC 26300. What would be submitted from OASIS to JTC1 in that case
is not ODF 1.1 itself, but a diff between ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0 2nd
edition. Is that correct?

2. Does this require an "OASIS-organized public interoperability
demonstration" as described in item (1c) of liaison policy?

3. At the time we prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition in response to comments
attached to the ISO/IEC 26300 ballot where was no notion of an "OASIS
errata" existing. We therefore prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition (rather than 
an errata). ODF 1.0 2nd edition went through a public review and
was approved as Committee Specification. Can we consider it to be
equivalent to an approved OASIS errata?

4. To prepare diffs between ODF 1.0 and 1.1 we may have to prepare
specification documents that have the erratas applied. If we prepare a
new specification document by applying approved erratas to an approved 
specification (let's say an ODF 1.0 third edition by applying ODF 1.0 
errata 01 to ODF 1.0 second edition), does that specification document 
require a public review and/or ballot?

Best regards, and best wishes for the holiday season.

Michael


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

Happy new year, all.  This follows up on our conversation at the TC's
last meeting about ODF v1.1 and JTC1, and later correspondence.

As we discussed last time, OASIS must now apply for re-certification
as a PAS submitter.  In our last application, a few years ago, several
P-members (nations) voted against OASIS, saying that they believed
that OASIS and the TC were not responsive (as of 2007), in sending
updates to ODF to JTC1, after the completion of the original approval
of the PAS v1.0 2d ed. as ISO/IEC 26300 (2006).

As we discussed last year, we worked in 2008 to negotiate better
mutual expectations with JTC1.  These included statements issued from
JTC1 and SC34, which you have seen, and also the changes made by our
Board of Directors to our own submissions policy, particularly Section
5(b) here:  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork

The policy encourages us to make sure that, once we have a jointly
approved specification, we keep our promises to keep the other party
current.

At the TC's last teleconference, I expressed concern that the TC
support our long-overdue plan to keep JTC1 up to date with us, by
making v1.1 available to JTC1 in some form -- before we complete our
PAS renewal candidacy (1st quarter 2010) or submit ODF v1.2.

We have an application ready to send to JTC1 for OASIS PAS status
renewal, and it's due now.  Confirming our plans for v1.1 is part of
what's needed to complete it convincingly.   I wish to include a
statement that the TC has committed to make v1.1 available to JTC1
promptly, in some reasonable form.  (See below.)  That did seem to be
the sense of the committee, at our last meeting.  To address Michael's
questions:

>  1. It is my understanding that ODF 1.1 would become an
> amendment of ISO/IEC 26300. What would be submitted
> from OASIS to JTC1 in that case is not ODF 1.1 itself, but
> a diff between ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0 2nd edition. Is that
> correct?

Yes, that's how Patrick Durusau and I read the rules, as discussed
last time.  Upon approval, the 2007 v1.1 would become an amendment to
26300(2006), not a new 26300(2010).  As a matter of presentation
style, we probably also can & should send a nonnormative full copy of
v1.1 for information.

> 2. Does this require an "OASIS-organized public interoperability
> demonstration" as described in item 1(c) of liaison policy?

I believe so, but I believe it can be waived by the Board, and in
light of the "amendment" treatment to address this left-over lag from
2007, I think we should ask them to do so.  Any other views?

> 3. At the time we prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition in response to comments
> attached to the ISO/IEC 26300 ballot where was no notion of an
> "OASIS errata" existing. We therefore prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition
> (rather than an errata). ODF 1.0 2nd edition went through a public review
> and was approved as Committee Specification. Can we consider it to be
> equivalent to an approved OASIS errata?

I believe so.  Our "Approved Errata" rule came after, and mostly was
modeled on, the "second edition" process we used with ODF.  And we
acted consistently with that position, by sending it (2d ed.) back to
JTC1 as an updated approved submission.

> 4. To prepare diffs between ODF 1.0 and 1.1 we may have to prepare
> specification documents that have the erratas applied. If we prepare a new
> specification document by applying approved erratas to an approved
> specification (let's say an ODF 1.0 third edition by applying
> ODF 1.0 errata 01 to ODF 1.0 second edition), does that specification
> document require a public review and/or ballot?

A change to the spec, under OASIS TC Process rules, always would
require a re-approval process, yes.  Either as new Approved Errata or
a new OASIS Standard.  This is why, in my view, the simpler approach,
as we discussed at the last meeting, would be to submit the 2007
version of v1.1 (already approved), not updated, and represented
definitively as a diff

This would give JTC1 a v1.1 (2007) that matches our v1.1 (2007). We
can and should send the subsequent errata, also ... but that's an
ongoing process, separately, and mostly will also be rolled up  into
v1.2 as I understand it.  So there is no rule requiring that we send
them at the same time.  Our problem here, in terms of release timing
and politics both, is that to JTC1's eye, we are 2.5 years late in
sending over v1.1.

In our imminent request for OASIS PAS renewal, I would like to include
a sentence, based on our last meeting and any feedback here, that
acknowledges our good faith efforts, along these lines:

"OASIS policy supports keeping shared specifications synchronized, by
providing to JTC1 the future finally-approved versions of
previously-approved standards.  OASIS intends to submit the last
(v1.1) version of ODF, probably as an amendment now that we have
guidance regarding its formatting, and also, when it is completed, the
major revision v1.2 expected to be approved later in 2010."

Comments on that proposed statement, or any of the other points above,
are welcome.   Thanks as always for all of your work.  We're looking
forward with enthusiasm to getting on with v1.2 too.  Best regards.
Jamie

~ James Bryce Clark
~ General Counsel, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark

Hi Jamie,

We've been going over the timeline on the TC for this kind of activity.  I 
agree that in principle we like the idea of 1.1 being approved by JTC1. 
But we are having difficulties making a schedule that works out.

The essential problem is that it looks very much like ODF 1.2 would 
overtake an ODF 1.1 amendment and they would issue at essentially the same 
time.  The nuance is that the PAS process is an accelerated ballot process 
in JTC1, while an amendment is a "slow-track" procedure.  So if you add up 
the processing steps for approving an amendment you find that they exceed 
the time needed to approve a PAS. 

I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be to anyone's benefit to have 
three different ISO ODF standards in a 6 month span: 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2.  It 
would certainly cause confusion among adopters.

We might also observe the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1:

"The social and economic long-term benefits of an IS should justify the 
total cost of preparing, adopting and maintaining the standard. The 
technical consideration should demonstrate that the proposed standard is 
technically feasible and timely and that it is not likely to be made 
obsolete quickly by advancing technology or to inhibit the benefits of 
technology to users."

I'd also note that even with a couple of NB dissenting, the OASIS PAS 
Submittor status would still be approved, as it was before.  So I'd urge 
not committing too much, and especially committing something that delays 
ODF 1.2, does not benefit ODF adopters and in fact could very well confuse 
them.  If there are concerns in this area we should be selling the view 
that ODF 1.2 is out for public review in OASIS and will be submitted 
shortly after approval to JTC1 under the PAS procedures, where it will 
contain all the desired features of ODF 1.1, plus addition features which 
ODF implementers and users have asked for.

In any case, there is no consensus on the TC to move ODF 1.1 forward to 
JTC1, although we continue to discuss.  Of course, OASIS has the ability 
to act unilaterally on this, but I'd urge you to carefully consider the 
timetable for such an amendment activity and the detrimental affect it 
will likely have on ODF if this is done.  I shared additional concerns in 
this regard in a note to you and Laurent last December.

So if we need to say something regarding ODF 1.1, could we frame it as a 
commitment to investigate and to deliver it "if at all feasible, 
considering as well the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1"?  I'd rather not 
get into a situation where ODF 1.1 comes out after (or very shortly 
before) ODF 1.2 is approved.  If we want we could initiative an 
informative ballot or meeting vote in JTC1 asking pointedly, "Would you 
rather have ODF 1.2 come out by date X?  Or have ODF 1.2 be delayed and 
have ODF 1.1 come out first, followed 3 months later by ODF 1.2, which 
will cancel and replace ODF 1.0/1.1?"  I think it is obvious what the 
results of such a ballot would be, and that would give us clearance.

Regards,

-Rob

clark.jbc@gmail.com wrote on 01/07/2010 04:05:11 AM:

> From:
> 
> James Bryce Clark 

Rob,

A couple of quick points.

First, you say there is  "no consensus on the TC to move ODF 1.1 forward 
to JTC1."

The more correct statement is that the question has never been formally 
asked of the TC.

So what you say is literally true, but perhaps unintentionally 
misleading to those outside the TC.

In the absence of the question being asked, there could be no indication 
of a consensus or lack of one on this issue.

I suggest we remedy that situation this coming Monday, January 11, 2010.

More to the point, the question is one of who the "customer" is in this 
situation. It isn't members of the TC or even implementers of ODF in 
various versions. The "customer" in this case *is* JTC1.

Is there some reason why you disagree on that point? If there is I would 
like to have it out in the open so we can discuss it.

If, as I suspect is the case, JTC1 is the customer in this case, the 
customer have voiced an interest in a particular version of ODF. For 
reasons best known to it. Those may be compelling or silly reasons in 
the view of some but the fact remains those are *their* reasons and they 
are entitled to them.

I have never heard of a supplier arguing with a customer about their 
reasons for wanting a particular service or product. It seems unnatural.

It is true that I will have to divert some cycles from the current work 
on OpenFormula to prepare the necessary diff against ISO 26300 and 
obviously a clean copy that everyone will pretend is simply for 
convenience but the sooner I get that done, the sooner we can lay your 
time concerns to rest.

Until the number of comments on ODF 1.2 is known and we can estimate the 
time for processing them, I think any time calculations are premature 
with regard to processing of ODF 1.1 in ISO and its relationship to ODF 
1.2.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> We've been going over the timeline on the TC for this kind of activity.  I 
> agree that in principle we like the idea of 1.1 being approved by JTC1. 
> But we are having difficulties making a schedule that works out.
>
> The essential problem is that it looks very much like ODF 1.2 would 
> overtake an ODF 1.1 amendment and they would issue at essentially the same 
> time.  The nuance is that the PAS process is an accelerated ballot process 
> in JTC1, while an amendment is a "slow-track" procedure.  So if you add up 
> the processing steps for approving an amendment you find that they exceed 
> the time needed to approve a PAS. 
>
> I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be to anyone's benefit to have 
> three different ISO ODF standards in a 6 month span: 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2.  It 
> would certainly cause confusion among adopters.
>
> We might also observe the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1:
>
> "The social and economic long-term benefits of an IS should justify the 
> total cost of preparing, adopting and maintaining the standard. The 
> technical consideration should demonstrate that the proposed standard is 
> technically feasible and timely and that it is not likely to be made 
> obsolete quickly by advancing technology or to inhibit the benefits of 
> technology to users."
>
> I'd also note that even with a couple of NB dissenting, the OASIS PAS 
> Submittor status would still be approved, as it was before.  So I'd urge 
> not committing too much, and especially committing something that delays 
> ODF 1.2, does not benefit ODF adopters and in fact could very well confuse 
> them.  If there are concerns in this area we should be selling the view 
> that ODF 1.2 is out for public review in OASIS and will be submitted 
> shortly after approval to JTC1 under the PAS procedures, where it will 
> contain all the desired features of ODF 1.1, plus addition features which 
> ODF implementers and users have asked for.
>
> In any case, there is no consensus on the TC to move ODF 1.1 forward to 
> JTC1, although we continue to discuss.  Of course, OASIS has the ability 
> to act unilaterally on this, but I'd urge you to carefully consider the 
> timetable for such an amendment activity and the detrimental affect it 
> will likely have on ODF if this is done.  I shared additional concerns in 
> this regard in a note to you and Laurent last December.
>
> So if we need to say something regarding ODF 1.1, could we frame it as a 
> commitment to investigate and to deliver it "if at all feasible, 
> considering as well the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1"?  I'd rather not 
> get into a situation where ODF 1.1 comes out after (or very shortly 
> before) ODF 1.2 is approved.  If we want we could initiative an 
> informative ballot or meeting vote in JTC1 asking pointedly, "Would you 
> rather have ODF 1.2 come out by date X?  Or have ODF 1.2 be delayed and 
> have ODF 1.1 come out first, followed 3 months later by ODF 1.2, which 
> will cancel and replace ODF 1.0/1.1?"  I think it is obvious what the 
> results of such a ballot would be, and that would give us clearance.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> clark.jbc@gmail.com wrote on 01/07/2010 04:05:11 AM:
>
>   
>> From:
>>
>> James Bryce Clark 

Patrick Durusau 

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> So if we need to say something regarding ODF 1.1, could we frame it as a 
> commitment to investigate and to deliver it "if at all feasible, 
> considering as well the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1"?  I'd rather not 
> get into a situation where ODF 1.1 comes out after (or very shortly 
> before) ODF 1.2 is approved.  If we want we could initiative an 
> informative ballot or meeting vote in JTC1 asking pointedly, "Would you 
> rather have ODF 1.2 come out by date X?  Or have ODF 1.2 be delayed and 
> have ODF 1.1 come out first, followed 3 months later by ODF 1.2, which 
> will cancel and replace ODF 1.0/1.1?"  I think it is obvious what the 
> results of such a ballot would be, and that would give us clearance.

I wouldn't be as sure as you. In past OASIS decided to push ODF 1.0 to
ISO level. Once it was done one would expect that ODF TC will try to
keep ISO and OASIS version synchronized and up-to-date. So instead of
finding arguments why not to send ODF 1.1 to ISO and prolonging this
situation by repeating same arguments and hypothetical timelines I would
suggest sending ODF 1.1 to ISO as soon as possible.

				Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

Jirka Kosek 

Jamie,

thanks you for your reply. Do you think you will join our next TC call 
on Monday in order to discuss the next steps?

In reply to your mail, several suggestions have been made on the mailing
list regarding the process to submit ODF 1.1 to JTC1. They all seem to
go into the same direction. Do you think these suggestions will work?
I think it may be easier for the TC to agree on the submission of ODF
1.1 if we know the process for doing that and its impact in detail.

Best regards

Michael


On 01/07/10 10:05, James Bryce Clark wrote:
> Happy new year, all.  This follows up on our conversation at the TC's
> last meeting about ODF v1.1 and JTC1, and later correspondence.
> 
> As we discussed last time, OASIS must now apply for re-certification
> as a PAS submitter.  In our last application, a few years ago, several
> P-members (nations) voted against OASIS, saying that they believed
> that OASIS and the TC were not responsive (as of 2007), in sending
> updates to ODF to JTC1, after the completion of the original approval
> of the PAS v1.0 2d ed. as ISO/IEC 26300 (2006).
> 
> As we discussed last year, we worked in 2008 to negotiate better
> mutual expectations with JTC1.  These included statements issued from
> JTC1 and SC34, which you have seen, and also the changes made by our
> Board of Directors to our own submissions policy, particularly Section
> 5(b) here:  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork
> 
> The policy encourages us to make sure that, once we have a jointly
> approved specification, we keep our promises to keep the other party
> current.
> 
> At the TC's last teleconference, I expressed concern that the TC
> support our long-overdue plan to keep JTC1 up to date with us, by
> making v1.1 available to JTC1 in some form -- before we complete our
> PAS renewal candidacy (1st quarter 2010) or submit ODF v1.2.
> 
> We have an application ready to send to JTC1 for OASIS PAS status
> renewal, and it's due now.  Confirming our plans for v1.1 is part of
> what's needed to complete it convincingly.   I wish to include a
> statement that the TC has committed to make v1.1 available to JTC1
> promptly, in some reasonable form.  (See below.)  That did seem to be
> the sense of the committee, at our last meeting.  To address Michael's
> questions:
> 
>>  1. It is my understanding that ODF 1.1 would become an
>> amendment of ISO/IEC 26300. What would be submitted
>> from OASIS to JTC1 in that case is not ODF 1.1 itself, but
>> a diff between ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0 2nd edition. Is that
>> correct?
> 
> Yes, that's how Patrick Durusau and I read the rules, as discussed
> last time.  Upon approval, the 2007 v1.1 would become an amendment to
> 26300(2006), not a new 26300(2010).  As a matter of presentation
> style, we probably also can & should send a nonnormative full copy of
> v1.1 for information.
> 
>> 2. Does this require an "OASIS-organized public interoperability
>> demonstration" as described in item 1(c) of liaison policy?
> 
> I believe so, but I believe it can be waived by the Board, and in
> light of the "amendment" treatment to address this left-over lag from
> 2007, I think we should ask them to do so.  Any other views?
> 
>> 3. At the time we prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition in response to comments
>> attached to the ISO/IEC 26300 ballot where was no notion of an
>> "OASIS errata" existing. We therefore prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition
>> (rather than an errata). ODF 1.0 2nd edition went through a public review
>> and was approved as Committee Specification. Can we consider it to be
>> equivalent to an approved OASIS errata?
> 
> I believe so.  Our "Approved Errata" rule came after, and mostly was
> modeled on, the "second edition" process we used with ODF.  And we
> acted consistently with that position, by sending it (2d ed.) back to
> JTC1 as an updated approved submission.
> 
>> 4. To prepare diffs between ODF 1.0 and 1.1 we may have to prepare
>> specification documents that have the erratas applied. If we prepare a new
>> specification document by applying approved erratas to an approved
>> specification (let's say an ODF 1.0 third edition by applying
>> ODF 1.0 errata 01 to ODF 1.0 second edition), does that specification
>> document require a public review and/or ballot?
> 
> A change to the spec, under OASIS TC Process rules, always would
> require a re-approval process, yes.  Either as new Approved Errata or
> a new OASIS Standard.  This is why, in my view, the simpler approach,
> as we discussed at the last meeting, would be to submit the 2007
> version of v1.1 (already approved), not updated, and represented
> definitively as a diff
> 
> This would give JTC1 a v1.1 (2007) that matches our v1.1 (2007). We
> can and should send the subsequent errata, also ... but that's an
> ongoing process, separately, and mostly will also be rolled up  into
> v1.2 as I understand it.  So there is no rule requiring that we send
> them at the same time.  Our problem here, in terms of release timing
> and politics both, is that to JTC1's eye, we are 2.5 years late in
> sending over v1.1.
> 
> In our imminent request for OASIS PAS renewal, I would like to include
> a sentence, based on our last meeting and any feedback here, that
> acknowledges our good faith efforts, along these lines:
> 
> "OASIS policy supports keeping shared specifications synchronized, by
> providing to JTC1 the future finally-approved versions of
> previously-approved standards.  OASIS intends to submit the last
> (v1.1) version of ODF, probably as an amendment now that we have
> guidance regarding its formatting, and also, when it is completed, the
> major revision v1.2 expected to be approved later in 2010."
> 
> Comments on that proposed statement, or any of the other points above,
> are welcome.   Thanks as always for all of your work.  We're looking
> forward with enthusiasm to getting on with v1.2 too.  Best regards.
> Jamie
> 
> ~ James Bryce Clark
> ~ General Counsel, OASIS
> ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering