I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, not you. They may come to the same conclusions, but its 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> On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure <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Review Period (as described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then the results of the Initial Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and void, and; a. A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed, in accordance with Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict.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 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.org/books/smime-certificate-wg/page/godaddy> 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 purpose. * 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. * Can this exclusion notice file be considered wrong due to referencing the EVGs instead of the BRs which is what SC70 is touching? * Can this exclusion notice file considered invalid because of the inclusion of a patent (#7) not related to GoDaddy? * 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? * 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Infrastructure mailing list Infrastructure@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure