/Docs/G/Kantara-UMA-Text-CmA/Comment/Introduction_0.md
Document views: Document Xray Visual Cicero Print   Source views: Source JSON   On GitHub: File ~PageRank   (rare: 'ShowMe' 1)
___
TiIntroduction
1.secThis document gathers together a series of model clauses representing a minimum set of commitments that parties serving in roles defined by the {UMA} specifications are assumed to adopt.
2.secThe clauses assume the parties are operating and using software programs and services in an environment where the operators declare themselves to be {UMA}-conforming and the parties formally agree (for example, in the form of contracts using these clauses) to such terms.
3.secTo get started, click on the Document link at the top. This will expand all the content from mere references to full values.
4.secThe technical system in which the clauses are encoded is called CommonAccord, which "expresses legal relationships as 'objects,' like software." This allows for reusability of each clause, term, abbreviation, and component therein.
5.secTerms and abbreviations appearing in the Terminology section are shown in green, persons (in the legal sense) are shown in brown, and tokens (UMA technical artifacts) are shown in red for your reading convenience.
6.0.secWhen reading, please note:
6.1.secAll of the formatting chosen here is adjustable, including colors, lists vs. paragraphs, headings, and so on. Suggestions on improving the formatting are welcome.
6.2.secThis summary is intended to be used as just a guide to the available reusable model clauses. We intend shortly to produce multiple sample documents from the exact same "fodder", such as standard agreements with "holes" where non-UMA content could go and consent receipts. Suggestions for sample document prioritization are welcome.
6.3.secWhen we like the English version of the UMA-specific content well enough, we intend to produce alternate-language versions as well, targeting French first. Suggestions for language prioritization are welcome.
6.4.secIf you like getting into the bits and bytes of the CommonAccord reusability paradigm, you can click the Source link at the top and then click around on links you find in the document body. To avoid getting lost, you might try right-clicking and opening up links in new tabs or windows.
6.5.secDuring live review on the UMA legal subgroup telecon, we will direct your attention to specific individual clauses, wherein you will notice some "Comments" and "Issues" for further discussion.
6.[G/Z/ol-none/s5]
7.0.secFor review purposes, please note the following open issues; if providing comments in email, referencing specific issue item numbers would be helpful:
7.1.NoteReflecting a change in 7.1.sec by renaming the existing one with a version number and replacing it with a new one.
7.1.secPer the group discussion on 2015-12-18, we now use {Person}, {Individual}, {Legal_Person} to refer to things that the law considers to have capacity to contract. Note that there are variations in this around the world. This also does not deal with the issue of {Individual} under legal incapacity, nor with the authority of a person to sign for a {Legal_Person}. For reference: the ABA Model Share Purchase Agreement.
7.1.sec.01UMA has for some years used (Non-Person Entity} ({Legal_Person}) strictly in a "person" sense, legally speaking. Therefore, we were stuck using {Person} rather than "person". But the term {Legal_Person} comes from the technical world, referring to hardware, servers, and -- on occasion -- organizations (for example, a PKI certificate standing for a whole company). It has been suggested that "Person" would be much more natural than "Subject". So, should we switch? This would have the benefit of freeing up "NPE" for client devices, hardware servers, etc. as well.
7.2.secThe obligations are still phrased as obligations, vs., say, commitments or agreements. Do we feel comfortable with this?
7.3.secThe "conditions" -- "For the period..." and "When..." phrases -- have been revised through Section 3, but need revision and consideration after that point. Are they going in the right direction according to our previous discussions?
7.4.secAll the obligations are between two parties. It is sometimes tempting to put them in the context of three parties. What is most appropriate in forging agreements?
7.5.secThe hardest question: Are these the right obligations? What's missing? How are down the "rabbit hole" of business, legal, and technical obligations should we go? See our recent list discussion about OAuth, SSL, security, liability, and indemnification.
7.[G/Z/ol/s5]
[G/Z/paras/s7]