Claims Agent Teleconference 2011-03-14

From IdCommons

Teleconference of the Claims Agent Working Group.



  1. Attendees
    1. Mary Ruddy
    2. RJ Schlecht
    3. Susan Morrow
    4. Ellen Newlands
    5. Colin Wallis
    6. Paul Trevithick
    7. Dale Olds
    8. John Bradley
  2. Notes from previous meeting
  3. Organization of this WG
    • Discussion of how to decide who was a member and what membership means.
    • John: We need to decide if we're developing specifications or not
    • Paul: Are we here to rubberstamp Microsoft's specifications and build an interoperable open source implementation? If so then we don't need IPR agreements.
    • Susan: I didn't sign up for that, there's so much more we can do.
    • Paul: I agree.
    • John: If we want the spec produced by this group to be accepted by OASIS or somewhere. It would be advantageous to deal with this up front.
    • Dale: Much as I dislike IPR agreements but I agree that it's the right thing to do here
    • John: At the moment we don't have a spec, so what we have here is a WG more like OASIS where there may be zero, one or more specs that will be produced. So folks are agreeing to contribute theirs or their employers IPR within the scope of the charter.
    • Dale: This is like Oauth where we say we're going to produce a spec. The container is the spec not the working group.
    • Dale: But I could go either way: IPR attached to the charter or to a spec.
    • Paul: Mary sent an OWF v0.9 version.
    • John: The v0.9 version is only for copyright, not for IPR. The v1.0 version is the one we want.
    • John: I just sent the v1.0 (that is oriented around a spec being the container (not a WG)). It is here:
    • Ellen: Corporate lawyers will want to limit as strictly as possible. And they may not be able to contribute at all.
    • Colin: The main thing that's different here is section 3 in the link above
    • Paul: I wonder if Microsoft would agree to this?
    • John: Mutual non-asserts are useful when there are significant threats (e.g. in the OpenID situation with Microsoft, Google, and Facebook).
    • Mary: I think it is plausible that it would be acceptable to them
    • John: Public review of OWF 1.0 was supposed to end Oct 8th.
    • Paul: Now we'd need a spec with a scope to attach it to
    • Colin: The person signing the OWF need not be the name of the WG member.
    • Colin: The primary contact at OASIS is the equivalent to the person signing this document. IT has to go fairly high up in the organization to make it meaningful.
    • Colin: It's got a shortcoming because in the form there's no indication of the level of the signer
    • John: We can change this if we like
    • Colin: I'm happy to try to take this suggestion back to the OWF group.
    • Mary: So this is the strawman
    • Ellen: Our lawyers would want confidentiality vs. contribute. Normally we sign confidentiality agreements. I guarantee that we've signed agreements similar to this (mutual non-assert). We have a coordinator for all of our stds work. I'll check with him.
    • Paul: Do we need to narrow the scope of the spec beyond what's in our charter
    • John: Section 4 (45 day opt out) would require that people's contributions are recorded.
    • John: Note that you are only bound by your own contributions that are included in the specifications, etc. (unlike a more blanket approach as in OASIS). OWF is focused on IPR of people's contributions vs. the final output.
    • Colin: Both are potential targets to come after later. Theoretically if you can get the contributions tight then the final output takes care of itself.
    • John: But that implies a higher overhead contribution process.
    • John: If it were up to me I'd add that you're bound to the final spec. If they agree to the final version of the spec, then they are bound to all of the necessary claims, not just the ones they contributed.
    • Ellen: Who does this? OASIS?
    • John: Yes
    • Colin: We did something similar in the Security TC
    • John: It is slightly less sensitive when companies are agreeing to RAND.
    • Colin: I wonder if we should lift the words from the std OASIS license agreement.
    • John: There is an OASIS mutual non-assert. Maybe we should compare that one to this one.
    • Colin: Agreed
    • John: Part of the idea of the OWF agreement is that large companies lawyers are familiar with it but the more we monkey with it the more problems we might have
    • Mary: Are we better off starting with the OASIS non-assert document?
    • John: The OASIS is written under the alternative idea of that the IPR is tied to the WG Charter.
    • Paul: We'll get reactions from Microsoft on this issue on the list I predict.
    • Paul: It seems like we're heading into needing a process where only folks that have signed (some) IPR agreement are capable of remaining on the mailing list.
    • Paul: I think the more we modify these documents, the harder this is going to be to get the large corporations on board
    • John: The OASIS documents would need significant modifications.
  4. Open Questions
  5. IPR
    1. What is the IPR
    2. How do we control membership
  6. Next Meeting
    • Same time etc. next Monday