- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:17:53 -0400
- To: Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com>
- Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
All good points. Just fyi, I believe that the intent is to get Member review for binding documents - but to get the input early when it is still in the MOU phase. Jeff On 8/15/2016 2:13 PM, Virginia Fournier wrote: > Hello all, > > From a legal perspective, an MOU and an agreement are not the same thing. An agreement is a binding document that memorializes the parties’ legal obligations. An MOU is a document that is usually non-binding and memorializes the parties’ intent. So defining an MOU as a “formal agreement” and/or “contractual framework” could be quite confusing. > > Since you reference rights and obligations, confidentiality, and IPR, it sounds like you are talking about a binding agreement. So, my suggestion is that this type of agreement be called something other than an MOU. Perhaps “Liaison Agreement”? > > > Best regards, > > Virginia Fournier > Senior Standards Counsel > Apple Inc. > ☏ 669-227-9595 > ✉︎ vmf@apple.com > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2016 8:07 AM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> w3process-ISSUE-172 (Define MoU): What is a "Memorandum of Understanding"? [Process Document] >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/172 >> >> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile >> On product: Process Document >> >> This is raised on behalf of Daniel Dardailler. >> >> Request: >> - provide a definition for our use of the term "Memorandum of >> Understanding (MoU)" in the Liaisons section. >> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Liaisons >> >> >> Rationales: >> - the Team is often asked to sign "MoUs" with other organizations >> that are just simple liaisons from our point of view, that is, they do >> not justify Member review, but because the other parties call them >> "MoU", and insist on doing so, we are often in an unclear situation (is >> it a "real" MoU ? should we inform our members ?). >> >> - MoU is as good as any other similar name like "Agreement" or >> "Partnership", "Formal liaison", so we only need to provide details for >> our own meaning of the term, and need not to change it. >> >> >> Proposed modification: >> - no change to the text using the term MoU, only make the term a link >> to a new definition entry, that can be added elsewhere >> >> - Suggested new definition: >> >> "In the context of the W3C Process, an MoU is a formal agreement, >> i.e. a contractual framework with W3C rights and obligations, that >> involves joint deliverables, an agreed share of technical >> responsibilities with due coordination, and/or considerations for >> confidentiality and specific IPR. > Most of this sounds good to me. But the "or" clause might mean that if we go visit a Member and they require an NDA by their process (even if there is no exchange of information) that it would require Member approval. So we may need to tweak this a bit. > >> The agreement may actually be called >> something else that an MoU, and something called an MoU may not be a W3C >> MoU in that sense. >> >> - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0034.html >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 15 August 2016 19:17:59 UTC