Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Thanks for the info, Dimitris. You´re right. Everything´s crystal clear.
Next time I will post in the right email.



De: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
Enviado el: martes, 26 de marzo de 2024 11:47
Para: Inigo Barreira ; Dean Coclin
; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure

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.





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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.
org%2Fabout%2Finformation%2Finfrastructure-committee%2F=05%7C02%7CInigo
.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C5dda5651f8074cf03ccb08dc4d82126f%7C0e9c48946caa465
d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638470468293476241%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C
data=44zXIUKzY3xyzOsTxFx6loR0JHPwKpL10XbeqrYzZZs%3D=0> . 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)  <mailto:dzach...@harica.gr>

Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
Para: Dean Coclin  <mailto:dean.coc...@digicert.com>
; Inigo Barreira
<mailto:inigo.barre...@sectigo.com> ; Ben Wilson
via Infrastructure  <mailto: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  <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  <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 

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure]

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) 
*Enviado el:* lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
*Para:* Dean Coclin ; Inigo Barreira 
; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 


*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 
<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 
<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 Guidelin

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Thanks Dean. Yes, that´s the idea and it has been included as the only topic
for the Thursday call (unfortunately I won´t attend it and I think Kiran
will run it).

 

De: Dean Coclin  
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 20:24
Para: Inigo Barreira ; Ben Wilson via
Infrastructure 
Asunto: RE: SC70 exclusion notice filled

 

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 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 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.

*   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 do

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Yes and no. As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related
to the infrastructure group as such, but there are things that need to be
discussed, like templates, change the bylaws (i.e., which public group? The
WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or general?),
wiki info, etc.

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.





De: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
Para: Dean Coclin ; Inigo Barreira
; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure

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  <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  <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 subscripti

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
<https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/forum/page/ipr-policy-exclusion-notices>
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”. 


 <https://wiki.cabforum.

[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