<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><DIV>Feedback on OpenID IPR Policy</DIV><DIV>--------------------------------------------</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">2. “Contributions” mean any communication to or through a particular Specification Mailing </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">List, or other textual materials, that are provided by a Contributor and are intended for </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">inclusion in an OpenID Specification. </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>This is a little vague on the intention. If I post on my blog about OpenID about where I think it should go, is that a Contribution? Who determines if it was intended for inclusion?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">3. “Contributor” means, with regard to a particular Work Group, any person (individual, </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">entity, or otherwise) who has signed the applicable agreement in accordance with Section II. </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">1(b) and has joined such Work Group by requesting access to the applicable Specification </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Mailing List and, if such person is an individual, includes such person’s employer or other </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">person or entity to whom that person owes a duty with respect to activities such as his or her </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">participation in OpenID. </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Who or what is OpenID? "OpenID" is referenced a number of times. It is not defined. Is it the community, the spec, the foundation? The term is used in a number of different ways. I would suggest it only be used as an adjective and each use be defined in the definitions.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"><DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(b) OpenID Contribution Agreement. <BR style=""></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Is this document the agreement? Is there a separate agreement? What is to be signed and returned? I don't see any signature blocks.</DIV><DIV>Who is the agreement with? There is the Contributor and ???</DIV><DIV>What jurisdiction is the agreement made in? Who enforces the agreement? What happens if a Contributor breaks the agreement?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">1. Becoming a Contributor. </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(d) Retroactive Effect. In consideration of OpenID allowing any individual or entity to </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">become a Contributor, such individual or entity acknowledges that Section V and VI of this </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Policy apply to any Contributions made before signing the OpenID contribution agreement </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">or otherwise agreeing to the terms of this Policy. </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>How would these Contributions be determined? Would a post on ANY OpenID mailing list be considered a Contribution?</DIV></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV class="ContractTitle"><SPAN style="mso-field-code:" ref="" k_title="" \\*="" mergeformat""="">OpenID Process Document</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>---------------------------------------<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel1" style="margin-left: 0in; "><A name="definitions"><B>1</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><B>Definitions</B></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: definitions"><SPAN style=""><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><B>.</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:definitions"><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13.3333px;"> </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>Each of the following initially capitalized terms has the respective meaning stated below.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>All other initially capitalized terms have the meanings assigned in this OpenID Process Document (“<B>Processes</B></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:definitions"><SPAN style="">”), in the OpenID Foundation’s IPR Policy (“</SPAN><B>IPR Policy</B></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:definitions"><SPAN style=""><B>”), or in the Bylaws.</B></SPAN></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Is this not the OpenID Process Document? Is that not the same as the terms below?<DIV>Referring to the OpenID Foundation Bylaws as a source of definitions I think is troublesome as the Bylaws can be modified, causing a potential change in this document. I'd prefer to have all definitions in this document so that it is complete. Is there a reason for spreading the definitions around?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">1.3“Bylaws” means the then-current bylaws of the OpenID Foundation, as may be modified from time </SPAN></FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">to time as provided therein. </SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I could not find the Bylaws for the Foundation online. A URL for the Bylaws should be included (as well as getting them online!)</DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><B>1.5</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>“<B>Editor(s)</B><SPAN style="">” means, for a particular Specification to be developed by a particular WG, the individual Contributor(s) selected to coordinate development of, and transcription of the work of the WG for, such Specification, as well as (together with any other Editors for that WG) to administer WG operation.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>How are Editors selected? What stops all Contributors from being Editors?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><B>1.6</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>“<B>Specifications Council</B><SPAN style="">” means a group comprised of: (a) all past Editors of Final Specifications who are still actively contributing to the OpenID community; (b) two representatives from the Board (one of whom is the OpenID Foundation Executive Director; and (c) all Editors from current WGs.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Each Editor will participate as a non-voting member of the Specifications Council until he or she has published a Final Specification, at which time such Editor will become a voting member.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>What makes an Editor an actively contributing member? When is an Editor removed? What is the rational for the OpenID Foundation to be involved in the Specifications Council? Are those voting positions?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><B>1.7</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>“<B>Supermajority</B><SPAN style="">” means at least two-thirds of those entitled to vote on an issue.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>What is the rational for needing a Supermajority?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><B>1.8</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>“<B>Minimum Membership</B><SPAN style="">” means, five Contributors.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For a new WG to be formed, at least one such Contributor should optimally be a member of the Specifications Council.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>What happens if there are no Contributors in a WG? Will it more likely be rejected? What is the rational that there should be a member of the Specifications Council?</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel1" style="margin-left: 0in; "><B>2</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><B>Work Groups</B></SPAN><B>.</B><O:P></O:P></P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="2.1"></A><A name="_Ref175330630"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><B>2.1</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Proposal.</B></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175330630"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Any group of at least Minimum Membership may form a WG by submitting a proposal via the mailing list </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A href="mailto:specs@openid.net"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175330630"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""="">specs@openid.net</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175330630"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175330630"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""="">; such proposal will include the following items, will be written in English, and will be provided in a plain text electronic form:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><A name="_Ref175392874"><B>(a)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><I>Charter</I></SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: " 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><SPAN style="">.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The proposal will include the WG Charter, which will include:<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(i)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>a WG name, which will not include trademarks not owned by the OpenID Foundation or content that is infringing, harmful, or inappropriate, and any acronym or abbreviation for that name;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(ii)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>a clear statement of purpose;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(iii)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>an initial Scope, which must be related to the purpose of the OpenID community and which will include a definition of what is and is not the envisioned “work” of the WG;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(iv)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>a proposed list of Specifications, including working titles, to be produced (and any other deliverables) and projected completion dates;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(v)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>anticipated audience or users of the work;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(vi)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>the language in which the WG will conduct business;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(vii)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>the method of work including any virtual or planned face-to-face meetings;<O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175392874"><B>(viii)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>a basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.1""=""></SPAN><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><B>(b)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><I>Background Information</I></SPAN><SPAN style="">.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The proposal will also include the following:<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><B>(i)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>any related work being done in other WGs or organizations, why the proposed new WG is necessary, and any proposed liaison with any such other WGs or organizations;</P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175330072"><B>(ii)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>the names, email addresses, and any Constituent affiliations of at least the Minimum Membership who support forming the WG (“<B>Proposers</B></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175330072"><SPAN style="">”) and the proposed Editor(s);</SPAN></SPAN> and</P><P class="ClauseLevel4" style="margin-left:0in"><B>(iii)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>optionally, a list of Contributions that the Proposers anticipate will be made to the WG.</P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175333071"><B>2.2</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Review.</B></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071"><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Specifications Council will review proposals within 15 days after receipt and promptly provide notice to </SPAN></SPAN><A href="mailto:specs@openid.net"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071">specs@openid.net</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071"></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071">, either accepting it or explaining the reason for rejection.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If a proposal is rejected, it may be modified and resubmitted.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The reasons for rejection will be limited to:</SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071"><B>(a)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with §</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071">2.1</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: _Ref175333071">);</SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071"><B>(b)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>a Supermajority decision that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community’s purpose;</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>This seems potentially arbitrary. What if there is a proposal that the Specifications Council does not like? This looks to be a source of politics. Why not let WGs get started and put more judgement on the output?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071"><B>(c)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>a Supermajority determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient support to succeed or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion dates; or</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Another potentially arbitrary decision point. Why not let the WG start and see if it can complete?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175333071"><B>(d)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN>a good-faith determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal liability for the OpenID Foundation or others (in which case, the Specifications Council may seek Board review of </SPAN>the proposal).</P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="2.3"><B>2.3</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>After Acceptance.</B></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: " 2\.3""=""><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Promptly after acceptance, a mailing list will be created for the WG and one or more of the Proposers should notify </SPAN></SPAN><A href="mailto:general@openid.net"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""="">general@openid.net</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""=""></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""=""> of the new WG.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This notice will announce the formation of a new WG, invite participation, and describe the WG’s proposed work, including any planned meetings (as based on the approved Charter).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The first obligation of a new WG is to establish and approve its Scope, which should broadly describe the outer limits of the WG’s work.</SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""=""><A name="_Ref175343931"><B>2.4</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Contributors.</B></A></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: " 2\.3""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175343931"><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Only persons or entities that have properly agreed to the IPR Policy may become Contributors to (or participate in) a WG.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A WG may, however, make copies of its Specification Mailing List, drafts, and other documents available for review by non-members.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A WG will not review or acknowledge comments by, or accept Contributions from, anyone other than Contributors.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Specifications Council may close a WG at any time that the WG has not had Minimum Membership for six consecutive months.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>How is Minimum Membership determined? Addresses susbcribed to the mailing list? Or is it via a formal withdrawal.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""=""><B>2.7</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Editors.</B></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""=""><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A WG’s work is coordinated by one or more Editors, and each WG must have at least one Editor and additional Editors may be selected at any time.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Different Editors in a WG may, however, be associated with different Specifications.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If an Editor takes emergency leave, or is otherwise unavailable, an additional Editor will be selected.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If a WG does not have an Editor, it will suspend work until an Editor is selected.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Specifications Council may close a WG at any time that it has not had an Editor for the immediately prior 30 days.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>An Editor may also be removed at any time by the Contributors to the applicable WG, under §</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.3""="">2.16</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: " 2\.3""="">; or by the Specifications Council, on its own initiative or in response to a complaint.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>Per above, how are Editors selected?</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175396402"><B>2.16</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Decisions.</B></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175396402"></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo13"><B>(a)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><I>General</I></SPAN><SPAN style="">.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>All decisions are either Core Decisions or Non-Core Decisions, and all decisions may be made in meetings (e.g., face-to-face, telephonic, or otherwise) or by email or other electronic means.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Any decision that is not clearly a Non-Core Decision will be treated as a Core Decision.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>“<B>Core Decision</B></SPAN>” means a decision relating directly to the WG’s substantive work, including those related directly to Specification content, Charter, or Scope; to approve an Implementers Draft or a Final Specification, or to adopt Errata (defined in §3.6); and to amend the Charter or to re-charter the WG.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>“<B>Non-Core Decision</B><SPAN style="">” means any decision other than a Core Decision, including decisions on date, time, place, and method(s) of attending meetings and other administrative details regarding WG operation or governance.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>Moving Core Decision and Non-Core Decision definitions to the Definitions section would make the document cleaner.</DIV><DIV>Is there a format for how decisions are presented? Who is responsible for determining the results of a decision? If removing or adding an Editor a Core decision or a Non-Core Decision? (S 2.6)</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175388516"><B>(b)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><I>Consensus</I></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175388516"><SPAN style="">.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Consensus is a core value.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To promote consensus, Editors should encourage consideration and resolution of all legitimate comments of Contributors.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>All WG decisions will optimally be made by determining consensus, without formal vote.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Editor(s) will assess consensus without a formal vote and, when a proposal is pending, may interpret silence of those who have received proper notice (or who are present) as assent.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Consensus does not imply unanimity, although there should be substantial support for consensus decisions</SPAN></SPAN>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For Core Decisions, consensus should reasonably reflect the opinion of a Supermajority of Contributors to the applicable WG, after reasonable inquiry by the Editors.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For Non-Core Decisions, consensus should reflect the opinion of a majority of Contributors actually expressing an opinion.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>How is consensus determined? Is silence consent? Does one negative vote mean there is no consensus?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175388724"></A><A name="_Ref175401981"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175388724"><B>(c)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><I>Formal Vote</I></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175401981"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175388724"><SPAN style="">.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If a decision cannot be made by consensus, the WG should defer decision until consensus can be reached.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If deferral would prejudice a WG’s work, however, the Editor(s) may call a formal vote.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Any such vote will otherwise be in accordance with §§4.6-4.9 of the Bylaws, as applied to all Contributors (even if not OpenID Foundation members), except as otherwise provided in this §</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175401981">2.16(c)</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: _Ref175401981">.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>I would be much more comfortable if the Voting Process was defined in this document. A change in the Bylaws voting which has to do with the Foundation will now impact Voting in the IPR Process. </DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175377834"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.15""=""><B>2.17</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Closing a WG.</B></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: _Ref175377834"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 2\.15""=""><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>A WG may be closed at any time by majority vote of all of its then-current Contributors (or by Board resolution, for the reasons stated in these Processes or otherwise if deemed necessary by the OpenID Foundation to avoid or mitigate legal risk).</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Board may also close a WG that has completed all deliverables in its Charter and has not agreed to develop new deliverables within the 180 days before closure; or that has not reasonably progressed to achieve its purpose, as defined by its Charter.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>Why is the Board responsible for closing a WG?<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175403144"><B>3.4</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>WG Decision.</B></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175403144"><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Approval of a draft as an Implementers Draft or the then-current Implementers Draft as a Final Specification should be based on consensus.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If the WG cannot reach consensus, then the decision may be made by formal vote.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The WG Editor(s) will notify the WG of a determination that consensus has been reached or of a call for (and results of) a formal vote.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Any Implementers Draft or Final Specification approved by the WG will include a list of Contributors who participated in its development.</SPAN></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>It is not clear that a Draft is approved by the WG, and only the WG. Is this true?</DIV><DIV>So if a bunch of people that oppose a spec join as contributors, then a spec will never be approved unless the Board steps in?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel1" style="margin-left: 0in; "><A name="_Ref175451011"></A><A name="board_involvement"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: _Ref175451011"><B>4</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><B>Board Involvement</B></SPAN><B>.</B></SPAN><O:P></O:P></A></P><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:board_involvement"></SPAN><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><A name="_Ref175364379"></A><A name="_Ref175377902"></A><A name="4.2"></A><A name="_Ref177452504"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"><B>4.1</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Delegation.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref177452504"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Board may delegate any of its obligations under these Processes (other than creating subcommittees) to a subcommittee of Board members, OpenID Foundation members, or both, and applicable terms in these Processes will then be deemed to refer to the subcommittee instead of the Board.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"><A name="_Ref175396595"></A><A name="_Ref177452509"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: _Ref175396595"><B>4.2</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Complaints; Appeals</B></SPAN></A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref177452509"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175396595"><SPAN style="">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref177452509"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175396595"><B>(a)</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><I>General</I></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:" 4\.2""=""><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175377902"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175364379"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref177452509"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175396595"><SPAN style="">.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>On proper notice from a Contributor,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref177452509"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:_Ref175396595"> the Board will consider any complaint related to, or appeal of, any action taken (or alleged failure to act) related to these Processes.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Board has authority to take any action it deems necessary to remedy a complaint or appeal.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>So the implication of this is that the Board is the Final arbitrator and can do whatever it wants?</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel3" style="margin-left:0in"><B><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></B></P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><B>4.4</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Amendment.</B><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Board may amend these Processes from time to time, in its sole discretion.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>Essentially the Board can make the specifications with this clause, as anything can be changed by the Board.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><SPAN style=""><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="ClauseLevel2" style="margin-left:0in"><B>4.5</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><B>Decisions.</B><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>All Boards decisions under this §</SPAN>4 will be made in accordance with the Bylaws.<O:P></O:P></P><P class="ClauseLevel1" style="margin-left: 0in; "><B>5</B><SPAN style="font:7.0pt " times="" new="" roman""=""> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><B>Miscellaneous</B></SPAN><B>.</B><SPAN style=""><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>All notices and correspondence under these Processes will be by email.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Unless stated, or context requires, otherwise: (1) “written” or “in writing” refers to a non-electronic document only, manually signed by authorized representatives of the writing party(ies); (2) all internal references are to these Processes; (3) “days” means “calendar days”; (4) “may” means that the applicable actor has a right, but not a concomitant duty; and (5) all decisions of the Board (or an Editor) under these Processes are in the Board’s (or such Editor’s) reasonable discretion.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Examples following “including” or “e.g.” are not exhaustive (i.e., are interpreted to include the words “without limitation”), unless qualified by words such as “only” or “solely.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These Processes will be interpreted according to the plain meaning of their terms.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-font-width:0%">Section headings are for convenience only and will not affect the meaning of any provision.</SPAN></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>Where are written documents sent?<BR></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>General Feedback</DIV><DIV>-------------------------</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>1) Looking over the archives for Legal [1], I see nominal feedback from the OpenID Community at large. This should cause concern.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>2) The OpenID Foundation is becoming a Standards Body. This is contrary to the Charter of the Foundation. The Governance of the Foundation did not anticipate being a Standards Body and the political implications of being a Standards Body. As a participant in the formation of the Foundation, it was very clear that we did NOT want the Foundation to be Standards Body. Will the Foundation be responsible and liable for enforcing the IPR of all the specs?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>3) Many organizations will NOT use a standard that has not been endorsed by a recognized Standards Body. While the OpenID Foundation could lobby to be recognized, that will take time and fractures the market as alternative standards must be selected where OpenID would be appropriate.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Suggestion:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The IPR for OpenID 2.0 needs to be cleaned up. Why not simply have the Contributors to the existing specs that are almost final make non-assertion statements and assign copyright, then move all further OpenID standards work to, dare I say it, OASIS? The Foundation could join OASIS which would allow any individual contributor that is a member of OASIS to participate. As holder of the OpenID trademark, the Foundation would have an effective veto on a standard being able to use the OpenID trademark -- but no control on the development of specifications.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- Dick</DIV></BODY></HTML>