[security-services] Proposed charter and standing rules

Folks-- Attached are a revised charter and a corresponding set of 
standing rules.  I believe I made all the requested edits to the 
charter, and I have started to use the new proposed OASIS filenaming 
rules for that file.  I hope we can discuss these in the next meeting.

Regarding the proposed standing rule(s) on IPR requirements, here is 
what I learned in talking to the LegalXML folks and an attorney in my 
company:

- LegalXML has a specific reason for using the "in no event" (MUST) 
language regarding producing RF specs.  Since their outputs are used by 
the public sector, particularly courts, the technologies using their 
specs have to be as open as possible.

- They see no reason for a provision not to accept non-RF contributions, 
since the OASIS copyright provisions allow for the reuse of contributed 
material, and since TC spec outputs are judged wrt patents regardless of 
whether the patented material was included with foreknowledge or not.

- To quote John Greacen, the LegalXML person who kindly responded to my 
queries: "One other solution to the IPR issue has been suggested by one 
of our TC members -- that we may choose in the future to leave some 
areas of specifications open with a note that there are several 
effective proprietary solutions available in this area and users of the 
standard should investigate them and choose one.  We could even list the 
vendors in the specification.  I think that approach would be consistent 
with our charter provision."  Such a solution would apply to us as well, 
in any case where we choose an RF path.

- My company attorney weighed in on the value of softening the wording 
from "In no event..." (MUST) to something like "It is the intention..." 
(SHOULD).  He pointed out that a SHOULD version it has no legal teeth, 
but it serves as business purpose in indicating (obviously) our intent 
and direction.  So he felt it's a reasonable thing to do, if that's what 
we want.

Given the above, in the attached standing rules document I have proposed 
the following singular IPR standing rule:

"It is the intention of the TC not to approve any technical 
specification if it believes that the use, distribution, or 
implementation of such specification would necessarily require the 
unauthorized infringement of any third party rights known to the TC, and 
such third party has not openly specified and agreed to provide 
necessary license rights on perpetual, royalty-free, non-discriminatory 
terms."

On re-reading this, I wonder if this isn't too MUST-like...  But 
hopefully sending it out will give people a chance to seek input from 
their own corporate attorneys etc.

	Eve

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com