What I have seen of IPR is that lawyers can drive the entire historical output of Ford vehicles through them without a scratch and not be in breach.  The first thing is to think like a lawyer, one word at a time.

Cl 1.2 – what are the “three different cases”?

Clause 2 says “UCAIug Members work in a collaborative effort ….. to identify, develop, create and publish documents that contain requirements, implementation agreements and training materials”

The definition of “publish” is (http://www.thefreedictionary.com)

1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

2. To bring to the public attention; announce.

In para 2 it then says “Any such document may contain IPR of the Contributor.”  Clearly if the contributor posts any of their intellectual property info into a UCAIUG document, knowing its purpose as stated earlier in Cl2, they are effectively assigning rights to the UCAIUG to use that intellectual property – otherwise they wouldn’t put it there!!!.  Hence the subsequent statement “the copyright does not include the IPR of the Contributor since that is the property of the Contributor.” is clearly incorrect, it is no longer their property.

The next problem is “Except as provided under sections 2.1 and 2.2 below, UCAIug Public Documents and Private Documents may NOT be posted on any Server, other than UCAIug Servers, or any other media allowing either restricted or unrestricted access without the express prior permission of UCAIug.”  Given that the objective stated earlier in CL 2 is to “publish documents that contain requirements, implementation agreements and training materials”, clearly it is not possible if these “published” documents cannot reside anywhere except on a UCAIUG server – I cannot even put it on my PC to look at whilst flying in a plane let alone use it to train anyone even if it retains the UCAIUG slide format and logo – counter productive to “publishing” training materials, or guideline documents or anything … I'm reasoanably certain no-one will be asking UCAIUG if they can download a document off the web site. This seems absolutely contrary to the purpose of having a Public Document and will burden Kay incredibly with requests to use this slide, that specification ….

Cl 2.1 Public documents can be used to produce “Derivative Works”  Great however if I want to use any part of said Public Document to create a larger training module or standard, I have to first ask UCAIUG and get their written authority. again counter intuitive and contradictory to the purpose of "publishing" precisely with the intent of SDOs or organisations to use the information.

Indeed it says “Public Documents may be used by any Member or non-Member for the following purposes: For reference; for creating Derivative Works; for Sharing;…..”  If they have been produced for Sharing, why does written approval need to be obtained from UCAIUG to do so?

Cl 2.2 refers to “Private” information– what does “Use” mean.  If it is a corporate member they can use it to produce documents and training material for use within their own organisation – but if it is to produce a specification issued to a contractor they are in breach.  Or if they are a consultant, they cannot reference the information in undertaking work for their client.  As an Individual, they can use it for their own “personal use” – unless they produce documents for themselves to read (??), what purpose can they use it for – can they produce training material that they present to others in their own or other organisations?

Cl 4.2   “or should have known” seems unnecessary – if they don’t actually “know” they would not disclose and never be prompted to do so.  Once they do “know”, then they are bound by the previous requirement to disclose it.

“Failure to disclose IPR allows UCAIug to take whatever action it deems appropriate.”  What does this mean – is it in the wrong sense?

Second dot point should read

• notify the IPR holder of receipt of such advice; and

although the third dot point has an inherent process of the UCAIUG to notify the holder in the first place (dot point two can be removed without loss of process).

Cl 5 – “interoperable” does not directly imply “plug and play”