[ubl-comment] Re: Copyrights,standards and trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT: consultation process for neworganization

I have personally always found it easier to resolve 
technical issues than the politics.

 

 The same is true of the world in general e.g. 
we have a world system/standrad for the telephone - but very little resolution 
of

many political issues

 

Cheers Phil  :-(

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Patrick Gannon 

  
To: James Bryce Clark ;  
  ;  

  
Cc:  ;  ;  
  ; -org ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

  
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 2:34 
  AM

  
Subject: RE: Copyrights, standards and 
  trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT: consultation process for new organization

  

  
Jamie,

  
 

  
As 
  always, WELL SAID!

  
 

  
Let's keep the technical work continuing and coordinated  
  

  
 

  
And 
  yes, those of us who have volunteered to deal with the "politic" will continue 
  to work at that, too!

  
 

  

  
Patrick Gannon
President & 
  CEO
OASIS
+1-978-667-5115 x201 (Office)
+1-408-242-1018  
  (Mobile)
+1-978-667-5114  (Fax)


  
    
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark 
    [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:03 
    PM
To: ; 
    
Cc: 
    ; ; 
    ; 
    ; 
    -org; ; ; ; ; 
Subject: 
    Copyrights, standards and trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT: consultation process 
    for new organization

At 06:37 AM 
    1/18/02, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:

    * ** why is OASIS working hard 
      to preserve the ebXML brand on their TC work, to include standing up their 
      part of the bargain to form the ebXML management committee and continuing 
      to promote ebXML, while the eBTWG is removing references to ebXML * * * I 
      thought the agreement was that the architecture group would be joint, and 
      that the ebXML Coordinating Committee would harmonize the work * * * 
      
ebXML was and is a good piece of work, and a 
    high water mark for intergovernmental and intervendor cooperation in its 
    area.   Some recent discussions about it have been unnecessarily 
    contentious.  The leadership of the affected groups are trying to find 
    ways to cooperate, in spite of several difficulties.  

There has 
    been too much trash talk, and not enough clarity, in these 
    discussions.   Here, in my own view as a participant who attempts 
    to remain neutral, is where we are.

   =   The 
    May 2001 arrangements for continuing the ebXML work were not executed in a 
    careful or open manner.   Participants seemed animated by private 
    agendas, to the detriment of the work plan.  The result was an 
    suboptimal but workable structure declared in a significantly inadequate 
    fashion.  Subsequent stumbles suggest that both relevant MoUs were 
    poorly negotiated and poorly drafted.  This was disappointing, but is a 
    recoverable situation.  I do not care to discuss the details publicly 
    right now, because I believe that good faith efforts are underway to 
    improve the situation, without unnecessary embarrassment or 
    finger-pointing, and I expect those efforts to result in clear and helpful 
    public discussions shortly.    

   
    =   The leadership of both groups have been trying to 
    promote coordination in good faith, though at times slowly or 
    unevenly.  There is too much turfsmanship, and too little attention to 
    process architecture.  Nevertheless, the actual work has been 
    progressing on all fronts in a spirit of cooperation and interoperation. 
      One example is the continuing and completely voluntary efforts of 
    the (CEFACT) BPSS and (OASIS) CPPA teams to remain in sync in their tightly 
    related models.  Another is the (OASIS) UBL white paper, which frames 
    its planned work product within the OO-edi and ebXML layers consistent with 
    anticipated extensions of the (CEFACT) business model.   These are 
    cheerful evidence that most of our technical participants are on the right 
    page, regardless of occasional management lapses.

    
    =   The ownership, copyright and forward control of the work 
    product is significant and sensitive.  Intelligent adopters will not 
    use any of this work if it is tied up in fractious disputes over 
    ownership or access, inadequately reconciled requirements, or obstacles to 
    fair participation in future versioning.  We are all groping towards an 
    optimal model.  Disagreements about private versus public control, and 
    financial control, are inevitable.  So are attempts to dominate the 
    process.  As a community, we have not solved this yet.  Mark, your 
    suggestion that all of the problems lie with CEFACT, and none with OASIS, is 
    neither accurate or helpful.   

All of the obstacles 
    described above are merely politic, and do not impeach the 
    technical work.  Also, they are all resolvable, if addressed in 
    good faith in a fair and transparent manner.  If we failed to solve the 
    political issues, the work is compelling enough that I suspect a critical 
    mass of experts would reconvene elsewhere and continue.   
    (Incidentally, the same thing happened to most of my keggers in high 
    school.  Eventually the police came, so we drove to another park, 
    procured more beer, and resumed the proceedings.)   So a solution 
    of the current standards group structure issues is desirable, but not 
    absolutely essential.

However, the work itself is essential, 
    as is our spirit of cooperation.  If we dissolve into contentious 
    factions, we cede the domain to a thousand competing proprietary forays, 
    years of absurd patent claims, and an unworkable Babel.  This is a 
    sufficiently bad outcome that it should inspire all to 
    cooperate.   

Jamie Clark

~ James Bryce 
    Clark    
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan 
    Inc.
~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic 
    Commerce   
~ 1 818 597 9475   
         
~ This message is 
    neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me 
  why.