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Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and void, and;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”. 


 

Re: [Infrastructure] Meeting recordings

[Dean Coclin via Infrastructure]

Is there anything that prevents those recipients from downloading and storing 
those recordings indefinitely? 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Martijn Katerbarg  
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:56 AM
To: Dean Coclin ; infrastructure@cabforum.org
Subject: Re: Meeting recordings

 

Dean,

 

During the F2F it was discussed to distribute the recordings to the management 
list for all members to listen back. Several members have expressed this desire 
and there was consensus in doing so as long as the recordings are removed after 
a certain time. 

 

Regards,

Martijn

 

From: Dean Coclin mailto:dean.coc...@digicert.com> >
Date: Thursday, 7 March 2024 at 14:53
To: Martijn Katerbarg mailto:martijn.katerb...@sectigo.com> >, infrastructure@cabforum.org 
  mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org> >
Subject: RE: Meeting recordings

Recordings are only used by the minute takers to assist in that task. After 
that they should be destroyed.

 

I’m currently receiving recording emails after the CSCWG and the regular CABF 
meetings

 

Dean Coclin 

 

 

 

From: Infrastructure mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Martijn Katerbarg 
via Infrastructure
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:22 AM
To: infrastructure@cabforum.org  
Subject: [Infrastructure] Meeting recordings

 

All,

I’m pretty much ready to launch a scheduled command to automatically send out 
meeting recordings to the CABF management list after each teleconference. A 
screenshot of the template used is attached here (with obfuscated details).

 

Do we want to pass this by the Management list or Forum call prior to enabling?


Another question that needs answering before we enable this: currently 
recordings are not auto-removed. We discussed enabling auto-removal, and I 
believe we’ve settled on 60 days. Are we all satisfied with that?

As an alternative, the WebEx API does allow for direct download of recordings. 
So my final question here is: If we have storage available, would we want to 
download a copy of each recording for archival and “just in case” purposes?

 

Regards,

Martijn



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Meeting recordings

[Dean Coclin via Infrastructure]

Recordings are only used by the minute takers to assist in that task. After 
that they should be destroyed.

 

I’m currently receiving recording emails after the CSCWG and the regular CABF 
meetings

 

Dean Coclin 

 

 

 

From: Infrastructure  On Behalf Of Martijn 
Katerbarg via Infrastructure
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:22 AM
To: infrastructure@cabforum.org
Subject: [Infrastructure] Meeting recordings

 

All,

I’m pretty much ready to launch a scheduled command to automatically send out 
meeting recordings to the CABF management list after each teleconference. A 
screenshot of the template used is attached here (with obfuscated details).

 

Do we want to pass this by the Management list or Forum call prior to enabling?


Another question that needs answering before we enable this: currently 
recordings are not auto-removed. We discussed enabling auto-removal, and I 
believe we’ve settled on 60 days. Are we all satisfied with that?

As an alternative, the WebEx API does allow for direct download of recordings. 
So my final question here is: If we have storage available, would we want to 
download a copy of each recording for archival and “just in case” purposes?

 

Regards,

Martijn



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

[Dean Coclin via Infrastructure]

We use the tool in the membership management portal now to track the votes.

 

Dean Coclin 

Sr. Director Business Development

M 1.781.789.8686

 



 

 

From: Infrastructure  On Behalf Of
Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:48 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
Subject: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

 

Hi all,

 

During today´s collection of votes for SC70 I´ve realized that the list of
CAs and Browsers is out of date.

 
 CAB Forum Voting - Ballot Tracker - Google
Sheets

 

There´re CAs that no longer exist and more Browsers to add for example. And
I haven´t considered the latest applications so the number can vary a bit
more. I think it does not affect to the results of the ballots due to the
number of CAs voting but the way the browser votes are counted can be an
issue due to that 50%+1.

 

Also would be good to know when to start reviewing the “participation” of
the different members and look for suspensions. The new charter was approved
and published in December (BTW, there´s no date on the new version 1.3 and
no way to find old version, if that´s of interest) and don´t know when this
is applicable.

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Update of "old" documents

[Dean Coclin via Infrastructure]

These were tools that Dimitris created and I refer to from time to time. We
should keep/update them and add someplace in the tool.
Dean

 

Dean Coclin 

Sr. Director Business Development

M 1.781.789.8686

 

 

 

 

From: Infrastructure  On Behalf Of
Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:28 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure 
Subject: [Infrastructure] Update of "old" documents

 

Hi there,

 

Maybe of interest for tomorrow´s call.

While reviewing the application of TrustAsia, found this google doc with a
checklist of what to do
 Checklist for New Member in SCWG/CAB Forum - Google
Sheets

Do we need to update all these google docs? Have these implemented somehow
in the member tool?

Another one could be the IPRs document, do we need to keep the old ones in
the wiki? What to do when one organization/person changes status? For
example, TrustAsia from associate member to full member? 

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure