On 26/3/2024 10:39 π.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote:
Yes and no.
I don't understand how you gave this interpretation. Your email is out
of scope of the infrastructure SC charter
<https://cabforum.org/about/information/infrastructure-committee/>.
However, I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.
As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related to the
infrastructure group as such,
Exactly.
but there are things that need to be discussed, like templates, change
the bylaws (i.e., which public group?
Discussions for changing the Bylaws must take place at the forum-level
public mailing list. The infrastructure SC is more oriented to technical
tasks, not policy. It cannot answer questions about possible
interpretations of the Bylaws. We have the Forum-level public list for that.
The last part (i.e., which public group) is not very clear to me. What
is the concern or the question?
The WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or
general?)
If this is a question for how to interpret the Bylaws or the IPR policy,
it needs to be asked at the Forum-level public list.
, wiki info, etc.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "wiki info".
This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for
the infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed)
but some can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how
to deal with these matters.
Since the infrastructure SC is a subset the Forum-level, a simple way to
approach this is that if you have a list of questions, out of which some
are in scope of the infrastructure SC and some are not, you must send
all the questions to the Forum-level list. This will give the
opportunity for all Members (including the infrastructure SC members) to
discuss these questions in one mailing list.
If you are not certain whether a question is or is not in scope of the
infrastructure SC, you can "fail-close" and send to the Forum-level list.
Does that clarify things at least about the scoping of the WGs/SCs?
Thanks,
Dimitris.
*De:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzach...@harica.gr>
*Enviado el:* lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
*Para:* Dean Coclin <dean.coc...@digicert.com>; Inigo Barreira
<inigo.barre...@sectigo.com>; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure
<infrastructure@cabforum.org>
*Asunto:* Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
These matters should be discussed at the respective WG. The
Infrastructure subcommittee is not related with this exclusion notice.
Inigo, I suggest you forward these messages to the servercert-wg
mailing list and continue the discussion there.
Thank you,
Dimitris.
On 25/3/2024 9:24 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:
I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and
unfortunately, not you. They may come to the same conclusions, but
it’s better to be done that way.
I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the
issues at hand.
Dean
*From:*Infrastructure <infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org>
<mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Inigo
Barreira via Infrastructure
*Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
*To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure <infrastructure@cabforum.org>
<mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org>
*Subject:* [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled
Hi all,
I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe
not the right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it
first to the management list) but in where we have at least a
lawyer (Ben) and an “interested party” which could be Wayne as
he´s listed in the patents even not working now for GoDaddy.
The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public
list, that an exclusion notice has been filled against ballot
SC70. And I have some questions, some regarding the procedure and
some others regarding the exclusion notice itself and what we have
in the wiki.
As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):
1. /If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then *the results
of the Initial Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed
null and void*, and;/
/a. *A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed*, in accordance
with Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG
will make a conclusion as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR
Policy, and communicate such conclusion to the rest of the Forum,
using the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List; and/
/b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and
endorsers decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:/
1. /The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the
Draft Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the
steps described in Sections 2.4(2) through (4) above,
replacing the “Initial Vote” with a “Second Vote.” If a
Draft Guidelines Ballot passes the Second Vote, then the
results of the Second Vote are deemed to be final and
approved. Draft Guidelines then become either Final
Guidelines or Final Maintenance Guidelines, as designated
in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The Chair will notify the
Public Mail List of the approval, as well as update the
public website of Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance
Guidelines; or/
2. /The proposer and endorsers make changes to the Draft
Guidelines Ballot, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be
proposed, and must go through the steps described in
Sections 2.3(1) through (9) above./
So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is
considered null, there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to
be formed. I added this topic to the WG call agenda for next
Thursday (I won´t be running the call because I´m on holidays for
Easter) and I was going to send an email to the SC public list
indicating that the ballot is null (BTW, we don´t have any kind of
template to make such communication). Is this the right
interpretation of the bylaws?
OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found
that would like to share.
1. This exclusion notice contains 7 patents
1. #1 (Method for a web site with a proxy domain name
registration to receive a secure socket layer
certificate): Created in 2004 (there were no BRs at that
time), granted in 2010 and expires in 2017
2. #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010,
granted in 2011 and expires in 2027
3. #3 (Methods and systems for dynamic updates of digital
certificates via subscription): Created in 2004 (there
were no BRs at that time), granted in 2013 and expires in 2030
4. #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015
and expires in 2033
5. #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate
status via partner browser plugin): Created in 2010,
granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
6. #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via
partner browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017
and expires in 2031
7. #7 (Method and system for managing secure custom domains):
Created in 2017, granted in 2018 and expires in 2037. This
was initially filed and assigned to Lantirn INC and later
to the Bank of Canada. GoDaddy is not listed anywhere.
2. All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under
column License Grant Election Made
3. All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 does
not touch the EVGs but the TLS BRs
4. In the wiki IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki
(cabforum.org)
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cabforum.org%2Fbooks%2Fforum%2Fpage%2Fipr-policy-exclusion-notices&data=05%7C02%7CInigo.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C63ecc355d89d43f0aa7208dc4d0a78ac%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638469954591537768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D0YH%2B9nNcF6XJ7sZzeZfc8ZxKhWcHih%2B2Hoc4bIu93w%3D&reserved=0>,
there´re some exclusion notices filled but:
1. Patent #1 declared in this PDF is already listed in the
wiki but with a slightly different number but under
“willing to license” it says “unstated”.
GoDaddy
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cabforum.org%2Fbooks%2Fsmime-certificate-wg%2Fpage%2Fgodaddy&data=05%7C02%7CInigo.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C63ecc355d89d43f0aa7208dc4d0a78ac%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638469954591555614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v%2F9ABG73f82WbHml%2FvKMbdvKm2MdZl3UVHAq9L4BFPk%3D&reserved=0>
31-July-2012
US Pat. No.7,702,902
Unspecified
Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to
receive a secure socket layer certificate
Unstated
2. Regarding the other patents I think those are new ones.
3. In the wiki list, there are some repeated (i.e.,
Generating PKI email accounts on a web-based email system)
with different patent numbers, which I don´t know if it´s
an error or on purpose.
4. Clicking on the PDF for the “GoDaddy patent exclusion
notice” it goes nowhere, there´s an error because the page
is not found. Same happens when you go to Discloser column
(first column) and click on GoDaddy
With all of this, and of course, waiting for the conclusion from
the PAG, I´d like to provide some thoughts and a preliminary opinion.
5. Can this exclusion notice file be considered wrong due to
referencing the EVGs instead of the BRs which is what SC70 is
touching?
6. Can this exclusion notice file considered invalid because of
the inclusion of a patent (#7) not related to GoDaddy?
7. What´s the reason for this exclusion notice in general,
considering is indicated the EVGs and not the BRs? Just to add
them to the wiki?
8. In the wiki there´re no reasons stated for example for #1 but
in this PDF file is indicated that no license granted, what to
do in this case?
Thoughts?
Regards
_______________________________________________
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Finfrastructure&data=05%7C02%7CInigo.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C63ecc355d89d43f0aa7208dc4d0a78ac%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638469954591569120%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eZ488c3hl1zNWof8WyT4QXK26FYlPhyseiBy3Gj4pDY%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
