Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

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  *On Behalf 
Of *Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure

*Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
*To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
*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the Initial Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and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.


  * This exclusion notice contains 7 patents
  o #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
  o #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted
in 2011 and expires in 2027
  o #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
  o #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and
expires in 2033
  o #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status
via partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015
and expires in 2033
  o #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires
in 2031
  o #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.
  * All 

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Dean Coclin via Infrastructure]

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  On Behalf Of
Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
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.

*   This exclusion notice contains 7 patents

*   #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 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted in 2011
and expires in 2027
*   #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 (Website secure certificate status determination via partner
browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
*   #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in
2033
*   #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires in 2031
*   #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.

*   All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under column
License Grant Election Made
*   All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 does not
touch the EVGs but the TLS BRs
*   In the wiki

IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki (cabforum.org), there´re some
exclusion notices filled but:

*   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”. 


 

[Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

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.

*   This exclusion notice contains 7 patents

*   #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 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted in 2011
and expires in 2027
*   #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 (Website secure certificate status determination via partner
browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
*   #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in
2033
*   #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires in 2031
*   #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.

*   All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under column
License Grant Election Made
*   All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 does not
touch the EVGs but the TLS BRs
*   In the wiki

IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki (cabforum.org), there´re some
exclusion notices filled but:

*   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

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

*   Regarding the other patents I think those are new ones.
*   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