<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I stand corrected on Ben’s not sharing the draft with the VWG – I hadn’t looked at it closely. I apologize, Ben – but I don’t think the changes you are proposing make are
an improvement over the current format of clearly enumerated validation methods, which we can discuss on Thursday’s call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I asked Richard for an example of the new format for domain validation he wanted (general concept with an example), as I have doubts about whether it can be audited by WebTrust
auditors (they can’t deal very well with auditing general concepts, and strongly prefer specifics instead for auditing purposes). That is still an open issue, and something I suggested we should first review with Don Sheehy and the other WebTrust representatives
to the Forum<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In any case, the purpose of the PAG is to examine final ballot proposals and actual adopted BRs and EVGLs against patents which have been disclosed, so I think this discussion
goes beyond the ambit of the PAG. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall (RD-US)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> pag@cabforum.org; CABFPub; validation@cabforum.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:55 PM, <a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">
kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a> <<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com" target="_blank">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Actually, the list-serv is a great place to clarify any confusion, as all members are included. What inaccurate
conclusions did I draw?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Again, I’m extremely surprised that Ben’s new draft has not been distributed yet to the Validation Working Group,
but was sent to the PAG instead. Ben, can you clarify?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Among others, that Ben hadn't circulated the draft, which isn't true.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can see Ben's email to the validation WG - <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000079.html">
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000079.html</a> - circulating this draft. It was in response to Richard Barnes' remark, at
<a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000076.html">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000076.html</a> , which you replied to expressing a desire to better understand how it might look -
<a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000077.html">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2015-July/000077.html</a> - which Ben has thus provided.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As towards the inaccurate conclusions of the PAG, I'm not sure where to begin, but it would help I think to wait for the minutes, as well as the draft attempt at the scope of the PAG. Among other things discussed on the call you were unable
to attend, but which will be reflected in the minutes, is the desire to avoid the specific enumeration of IPR and instead focus on understanding the applicability of the IPR policy's definition of Essential Claims as it applies to such enumerations as 3.2.2.4. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<table><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff><font color=#000000><pre><table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table></pre></font></td></tr></table>