Kirk - I agree with your arguments that my proposed language is too broad but I also think that yours is a bit too narrow. How about:
“Due to the lack of IPR protection, Subcommittees of the Forum shall not engage in activities that carry a significant risk of introducing encumbered intellectual property, such as the development or amendment of Guidelines.” - Wayne On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:25 AM Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > Wayne – as I said on the call, I think the restriction should be > narrower. Something like “In order to avoid coming within the scope of > the IPR Agreement , the Forum and its Subcommittees shall not engage in > the development or amendment of Guidelines.” > > > > The draft language you have below is almost impossible to apply – “any > activity that could result in a claim infringement of a Member's > Intellectual Property”. If we discuss a draft Charter at the Forum level > for creation of a new Anti-Gravity Certificate Working Group and we want to > fine-tune the WG’s scope, we will certainly be discussing technical > issues. How can we possibly know whether or not our discussion “could > result in a claim infringement of a Member's Intellectual Property”? I > have no idea what Intellectual Property the other Members have. > > > > As another example, the Infrastructure WG may forward a proposal to the > Forum for how we do our wiki, emails, etc., and ask for comments. I’m sure > that several Members have IP relating to wikis, servers, email systems, > etc. If we discuss the WG proposal at the Forum level, would that be an > “activity that could result in a claim infringement of a Member's > Intellectual Property”? No, because the Forum will not be drafting > Guidelines, and is not a WG. > > > > We need to keep focused on the language of the IPRA and what it covers – > which is only development of Guidelines at the WG level. So long as the > Forum (and its subcommittees) stays away from that, we should be good. > > > > *From:* Public [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Wayne > Thayer via Public > *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2019 9:38 AM > *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Bylaws: Add Forum Subcommittees > > > > On today's call, we discussed the addition of the following section to the > Bylaws: > > 5.6 Subcommittees > The Forum may establish subcommittees of the Forum by ballot to address > any of the Forum’s business as specified in the ballot. Subcommittees are > open to all Forum Members. A Forum Subcommittee may work on and recommend > Forum ballots, complete delegated Forum functions, or issue reports to the > Forum that are within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Subcommittees must > post all agendas and minutes on a public mail list. > > > > Ryan proposed the addition of explicit language regarding IPR. Something > like: > > > > Subcommittees of the Forum shall not engage in any activity that could > result in a claim infringement of a Member's Intellectual Property. Such > activities include the discussion or creation of Guidelines or similar > standards-setting documents. > > > > Comments? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Wayne >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
