W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Issue-163 ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding Member Rights

From: J. Alan Bird <abird@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:03:37 -0400
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <313aeb55-40e4-27a1-a2c0-6350edcd6541@w3.org>
I agree


On 5/1/2016 23:02, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus to update the Process 20168 Draft with a 
> change to Section  2.1.1 Rights of Members.
>
> Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 14 May 2016 
> (two weeks). Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, 
> I abstain) to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a 
> lack of reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread 
> for that discussion (so that "votes" are easily separated from 
> "discussion").
>
> The Problems:
> When we introduced the Introductory Industry Membership level [1, 2] 
> we imposed limitations on the rights and privileges of this category 
> of Member. The proposed change eliminates the disagreement between the 
> current terms of an Introductory Industry Member per their Member 
> Agreement and this section of the Process which implies such Members 
> may participate in (all) Working Groups and Interest Groups.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees?showall=1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/intromem
>
> In looking at the way we define the entitlements of Member 
> Organizations that are also a Consortium in nature, there are a couple 
> of issues that need to be addressed.  They arise from the fact that we 
> allow these Members to appoint four (or more) people to represent them 
> within W3C.  While we say they are there to represent the Consortium 
> we have been experiencing cases where these designated representatives 
> are in fact representing their own interests.  This opens an IP 
> exposure for W3C because we don't have commitments from their 
> employers just from the Consortium.  It also offers a "back door" for 
> large corporations to participate without joining themselves.  This 
> proposal closes those loopholes.
>
> The proposed changes are:
>
> in 2.1.1 Rights of Members, second sentence;
>
> change
>
> "Furthermore, representatives of Member organizations participate in 
> W3C as follows:"
>
> to
>
> "Furthermore, subject to further restrictions included in the Member 
> Agreement, representatives of Member organizations participate in W3C 
> as follows:"
>
> in 2.1.1 Rights of Members, third paragraph,
>
> change
>
> "In the case (described in paragraph 5g of the Membership Agreement), 
> where a Member organization is itself a consortium, user society, or 
> otherwise has members or sponsors, the organization's paid staff and 
> Advisory Committee representative exercise all the rights and 
> privileges of W3C membership. In addition, the Advisory Committee 
> representative may designate up to four (or more at the Team's 
> discretion) individuals who, though not employed by the organization, 
> may exercise the rights of Member representatives. These individuals 
> must disclose their employment affiliation when participating in W3C 
> work. Provisions for related Members apply. Furthermore, these 
> individuals are expected to represent the broad interests of the W3C 
> Member organization and not the parochial interests of their employers."
>
> to
>
> "If the Member is itself a consortium, user society, or otherwise has 
> members or sponsors, as described in paragraph 5g of the Member 
> Agreement, the rights and privileges granted by W3C Process extend to 
> the organization's paid employees and its appointed Advisory Committee 
> representative, who exercise all the rights and privileges of W3C 
> membership.
>
> Such an organization may also designate up to four (or more at the 
> Team’s discretion) non-employee individuals who may exercise the 
> rights of Member representatives.
>
> * For Consortium who have individual persons as Members these 
> representatives must disclose their employment affiliations when 
> participating in W3C work. Provisions for related Members apply.  
> Furthermore, these individuals must represent the broad interests of 
> the W3C Member organization which appoints them and not the particular 
> interests of their employers.
>
> * For Consortium who have organizations as Members, all such 
> designated representatives must be an official representative of the 
> Member organization’s (i.e. a Committee or Task Force Chairperson) and 
> must disclose their employment affiliations when participating in W3C 
> work. Provisions for related Members apply. Furthermore, these 
> individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member 
> organization and not the particular interests of their employers.
>
> * In both cases any IPR contributions are only those of the individual 
> person or Consortium they are representing as no IPR commitments have 
> been granted by the individuals' employers."
> Discussion:
> Several issue were raised with respect to this draft. These all apply 
> to the revised third paragraph and include:
>
> 1. Who Consortium participants represent. The Process Document 
> (section 5.2.1) says, "A participant/must/represent at most one 
> organization in a Working Group or Interest Group." Does this make the 
> restrictions on Consortium participation in bullets one and two 
> redundant?  The consensus of the 15 February Process Document TF was 
> that it was not redundant because they tighten the restriction by 
> saying which organization the participant represents.
>
> 2. People who are representing a member should be bound to maintain 
> member confidentiality to the point where their sponsoring member is 
> the range of permitted sharing; that is, they may not share that 
> information with their employer if that is different than their 
> sponsoing member. This is not covered by the proposed changes here, 
> but is a separate issue.
>
> 3. Does this limit the rights of an organization to change the 
> participants in a given activity? No, it only limits there choice of 
> participant to a specific class of individuals, the direct employees 
> of the Consortia, their appointed AC Rep and people in leadership 
> roles in the Consortia.
>
> 4. Does this proposed change give adequate IPR protection? This is not 
> clear. Perhaps such participants should be required to at least follow 
> section 2.3 Patent Policy of the INVITED EXPERT AND COLLABORATOR 
> AGREEMENT [3]
> [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/06-invited-expert.html
> "The Invited Experts represent that they are legally entitled to grant 
> the necessary licenses for their contribution as described in the 
> Patent Policy, especially in Section 3.4 thereof. If the Invited 
> Experts' employer(s) have rights to intellectual property that the 
> Invited Experts create that includes their contributions, they 
> represent that they have received permission to make the relevant 
> licensing commitments according to the W3C Patent Policy on behalf of 
> that employer."
>
> Steve Zilles
> Chair, Process Document TF
> Sent from Samsung tablet

-- 
J. Alan Bird
W3C Global Business Development Leader
office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird
Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 10:03:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 10:03:45 UTC