RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF 3.0 Summary and Introduction for Practitioner Review (ECF 3.0 Summary and Introduction v3.zip) uploaded

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF 3.0 Summary and Introduction for Practitioner Review (ECF 3.0   Summary and Introduction v3.zip) uploaded

From: John Messing <>

To: 

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:28:49 -0700

I think generally this is a good effort. However, I think that the
discussion of signatures profiles on page 8 is in error in that it
fails to mention and discuss the two additional signature profiles that
have been added as of January 24, 2006 by affirmative ballot of the TC,
bringing the total to five. For the same reason, the zipped packages of
the specification referenced page 6 as available on the TC and NCSC
websites possibly are not yet complete.

Some nitpicks:

1. The discussion of service of court documents could probably benefit
from consistently distinguishing secondary service as "service" from
"service of process", which is primary service. This follows the
nomenclature of the ABA Best Practices for Electronic Service of
Process and the usage by lawyers and judges in trial courts regarding
such matters.

2. On page 9, in the phrase "Whether the court will accept electronic
filed sealed documents", "electronic" should probably be
"electronically".

3. The last sentence of footnote 3 is a little confusing and probably
could be deleted without altering the intended content.

4. The document ignores the participation of vendors as infomediaries,
which possibly differs significantly from the intended scope of ECF
3.0.

5. Who are the practitioners that comprise the intended audience?
Practitioners usually refers to practicing lawyers, but that does not
seem to fit. Vendors do not seem to be addressed, so is it IT personnel
of courts and their superivising judges?

All in all a good job. Thanks much.

>