I think Wayne's last phrase maintains a certain balance that covers most
of the concerns raised from all sides. I propose we move forward with
that and see how it will work out. In case we find ourselves in a
situation where we can't discuss or propose new ideas due to possible
IPR alarms raised by members, we can revisit this language.
Thanks,
Dimitris.
On 9/2/2019 3:12 π.μ., Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not sure there will always be
agreement on how to interpret the phrase “the Forum shall not engage
in activities that carry a significant risk of introducing encumbered
intellectual property”. Clearly working on the development or
amendment of Guidelines should be blocked. Can you give examples of
“activities that carry a significant risk of introducing encumbered
intellectual property” that don’t involve Guidelines? I can’t think
if any – the IRPA only addresses Guidelines.
I would hate to adopt a phrase like that if it resulted in fights on
what non-Guidelines topics could be discussed at the Forum level.
*From:*Wayne Thayer [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:40 PM
*To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]>
*Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: cabfpub] Bylaws: Add Forum Subcommittees
*WARNING:* This email originated outside of Entrust Datacard.
*DO NOT CLICK* links or attachments unless you trust the sender and
know the content is safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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] <mailto:[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]
<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]
<mailto:[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
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
