RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

> Correct, and I've now fixed the Encryption charter to read, 
> "All required, 
> recommended, and optional features ..."

OK, changed.

One nit though, does this mean that if we say 'support for SPKI is optional'
then someone has to do it. 



> I think we're going to have to go to the trouble. In the 
> submission [1], some 
> of the submitters made it clear that derivative works were 
> permitted and that 
> any patents would be available RF (royalty free), others were 
> less clear 
> about derivative works and stated a RAND (reasonable and 
> non-discriminatory) 
> license would be available. This is fine for a NOTE, but not for a 
> deliverable of a WG.

> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/08/
> 
> The quickie breakdown is:
> 
> A. Permits derivative works and grants Royalty Free license 
> for patents:
> Microsoft Corporation, VeriSign Inc., webMethods Inc., 
> Citigroup, Reuters 
> Limited.
> 
> B. Unstated terms for derivative works and RAND License for patents:
> Baltimore Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Company, 
> International Business 
> Machines Corporation, IONA Technologies, PureEdge

The significant point here is that the invention was by VeriSign,
Microsoft, webMethods and Citigroup. The only other company directly
involved in the design stage was nanobiz which VRSN has now bought.

Baltimore, IBM, HP etc wanted to support the proposal but the
overhead of checking their IPR is high and would not have been
completed in time for the Note submission.

I have no problems putting an RF statement in the charter, but
I am not going to draft it. Does the W3C have an RF statement
from elsewhere that we can plug in?


> So clarifying the right of the W3C to make a derivative work 
> treated solely 
> under the W3C license is fairly easy, I wrote boiler-plate 
> [2] for that for 
> the SOAP submission that I'd have to get the companies in 
> class B to agree 
> to. The patent issue is a tough nut to crack and is currently 
> the critical 
> path issue for a number of new activities at the W3C. If you 
> already have a 
> MOU, that's very convenient because this issue would probably 
> be the biggest 
> source of delay in starting the activity.
> 
> > 11. W3C Team commitment: Per our discussions, I thought the 
> W3C staff
> > indicated they didn't want to co-chair or edit. So why the 
> parenthetical
> > note?  Maybe Joeseph or Danny can suggest text more 
> explicitly defining
> > their role?
> 
> "The W3C Team will dedicate 20% of a single person to this 
> activity for 
> active WG participation and the Staff Contact role: liasoning 
> with other 
> Staff Contacts of identified WGs, and advising the Chair and 
> WG on W3C 
> Process and Publishing."

OK. Frontpage is suggesting lassoing rather than liasoning but
I'll stick with your version.

> Finally, I don't expect the XKMS to have representation on 
> XML CG. They're 
> kind of stingy with that (they like to keep it small) and 
> invite folks with 
> mutual bi-directional dependencies: xmldsig nor xenc have 
> been members. I'd 
> expect the list name would be www-xkms@w3.org (folks are 
> trying to make our 
> conventions for list names between public/member more 
> consistent) and the URI 
> of the activity would be http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS (like 
> Encryption had to 
> do).
> 
> 
> [2] Declaration of [Submitter]
>  
>     [Submitter] hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, nonexclusive,
>     royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any [Submitter]
>     copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish and 
> distribute the
>     contribution, as well as a right and license of the same 
> scope to any
>     derivative works prepared by the W3C and based on, or 
> incorporating all
>     or part of the contribution. [Submitter] further agrees that any
>     derivative works of this contribution prepared by the W3C shall be
>     solely owned by the W3C.

Where do I put that?


		Phill