[ebxml-dev] Fwd: Copyrights, standards and trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT:consultation process for new organization

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:03:21
> -0800
> To: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org, ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org
> From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>
> Subject: Copyrights, standards and trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT:
> consultation process for new organization
> Cc: karl.best@oasis-open.org, patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org,
> carol.geyer@oasis-open.org, ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
> ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org, knaujok@attglobal.net,
> mario.apostolov@unece.org, david_marsh@wragge.com,
> raywalker@attglobal.net, hunterd@wharton.upenn.edu
>
> 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   jamie.clark@mmiec.com   
> jbc@lawyer.com 
> ~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask
> me why.