This week we initiated the “informal” dispute resolution stage (Section 9.1) of the Master Team Agreement (MTA) with a teleconference. The CFO of the X PRIZE Foundation (XPF) stated that the meeting was “to discuss your concerns and see if we can't come to some common ground.” Mystical Moon opened the meeting with a similar statement expressing our desire to reach some mutually acceptable “middle ground.” The meeting was conducted in a very open and friendly manner.

Mystical Moon brought up the recent overly harsh behavior of XPF personnel utilizing threat tactics to ‘bully’ the teams into submission. We discussed what has been a common procedural practice of XPF to ‘surprise’ the teams with new requirements while demanding their acceptance (signature) within an unreasonable time frame. The threats were very ominous, “if we do NOT receive signed copies of this amendment by the above-mentioned deadline, we will disqualify your team from the competition”. This common legal tactic creates an unconscionable situation by forcing the teams to sign the new agreement under duress. This procedural element also dictates ‘oppression’ due to the unequal bargaining or ‘one-sided’ power distribution that results. We objected to the use of such tactics.

The discussion also included some of the team requirements included in the MTA. XPF informed us that the rules, requirements, terms and conditions in the MTA are being driven by Google right down to the ‘blogging and video’ requirement. We discussed the video requirement as defined in Section 6.3.2 as follows:

"The Public Outreach Liaison or other Team Member or Members shall publish a minimum of one blog per week to an XPF-designated website or XPF-designated account on Blogger or another blogging platform.

Team shall also provide online streaming videos, posted to an XPF-designated website or XPF-designated YouTube account, with a minimum cumulative duration of forty-five (45) minutes over each calendar quarter. Team shall publish a minimum of three (3) discrete, substantively different videos per month."

Nowhere in this section does it say the videos have to be produced by the team members. Yet, XPF merely states that was their ‘intention’ even if the language within the agreement does not explicitly state or even remotely suggest that interpretation. And therein lies the ‘rub”’ of the one-sided, overly oppressive agreement between the GLXP teams and XPF/Google. XPF can simply ‘interpret’ the language any way it pleases thereby inventing new requirements at any time. Hence, the X PRIZE Foundation (and Google) can do what they want, when they want and to whom they want at their every ‘whim and fancy’ without reason or recourse.

We also discussed the chilling effect XPF’s threats have caused on investors and sponsors. No sponsor wants to hear threats that their team will be disqualified for missing a blog post or only providing 43 minutes of video one quarter. After all, what investor/sponsor wants to agree to provide ‘big bucks’ to accomplish a ‘Monumental Moon Mission’ only to incur a loss because of a ridiculous minuscule blogging requirement? Just think about the inequity of the situation. On the one hand, XPF/Google is asking the teams to secure funding, design, develop and execute a multi-million dollar mission to the Moon and, with the other hand, rapidly ‘turn the crank’ to produce insignificant video content that XPF can “exploit” to cover their overhead costs and California lifestyle. The definition of “oppression” is “the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.”

Another serious issue that we raised was regarding Exhibit B of the MTA. One of our strongest objections is that XPF/Google expect children to sign this "TEAM MEMBER RELEASE, WAIVER, AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT" along with their parent or guardian. We informed XPF that we seriously object to "exploiting" children in any way, for any reason or for anyone's benefit (including XPF and Google). The following discussion included the definition of ‘Team Member’, as well as what team roles were considered to be ‘Team Members’ requiring the submission of Exhibit B. (You can find the definition in last week’s blog post). XPF told us that many teams voiced their concerns regarding Exhibit B which XPF promised to address. We told XPF that we would revisit our organizational structure to resolve the issue and we do not intend to place any children in roles requiring a team member release agreement (Exhibit B).

The meeting lasted a little over an hour and yielded many interesting facts including that XPF 'pledges its allegiance' to Google by virtue of their contractual agreement. It was quite apparent that Google is the puppet master pulling all the strings while XPF is merely a puppet. Therefore, there is no advocate for the teams in this dispute resolution process. It will be very interesting to see whether this process even has any merit since Google is not directly involved and XPF appears to just ‘default’ to their contractual obligations with Google (which the teams have no insight into). Although the meeting was opened with the mutual desire to reach ‘middle ground’, XPF would not budge from their position; perhaps because Google did not give them the authority to do so. We can only hope that future discussions will be more fruitful.

The last topic discussed was the fact that XPF/Google was in breach of the MTA. XPF simply stated that they wouldn’t know about that and would have to speak with their attorneys. It is inconceivable that XPF has not spoken to their attorneys on the matter especially since Mystical Moon notified XPF of the situation weeks ago.

In conclusion, there were 3 major points to ‘take away’ from this week’s meeting:

1. XPF/Google is in breach of version 3.0 of the Master Team Agreement with the teams.
2. Mystical Moon disagrees with XPF’s interpretation or ‘intent' of Section 6.3.2.
3. Mystical Moon strongly objects to the ‘exploitation’ of children in any way but especially as outlined in Exhibit B.

We shall see where next week’s meeting takes us – hopefully moving toward ‘middle ground’.

Sincerely,
Mystical Moon

"Oppression that is clearly inexorable and invincible does not give rise to revolt but to submission." - Weil, Simone