<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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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">Ryan, I suggest you start participating in the Validation Working Group. We have already been discussing all the issues you discuss below – what it the best way to formulate
domain validation methods – and it is not useful to switch the existing conversations back and forth between the VWG and the PAG. To be frank, I don’t understand what you are saying below. Are you proposing that we move the current ballot on updating domain
validation methods from the VWG to the PAG? If so, why? The PAG’s purpose is to examine BRs and EVGLs that are fully formulated against disclosed patents. How is a draft proposal that has not yet been approved relevant to 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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Again, this conversation has been going on for six months in the VWG, so I suggest it return there, and I hope you will participate.<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 8:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall (RD-US)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> pag@cabforum.org; validation@cabforum.org; CABFPub<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><br>
On Jul 28, 2015 7:47 PM, "<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> 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. <br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>That's not true, and again, it is unfortunate you were unable to make the call, since we spent significant time discussing the purpose of the PAG. Please also read the bylaws you posted earlier, and my original request for a PAG. You can see section 7.1's
final sentence - a disclosure is not required for the formation of a PAG, but can be formed to avoid issues. Further, as you examine the rest of Section 7, you can further see support for providing feedback on Drafts (not adopted or final proposals). You can
further see my original request for the formation of a PAG, which is to provide clarity for our IPR policies, so that we can avoid potential issues - especially as the Validation WG iterates on drafts towards a final proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Hopefully this clarifies some of what was discussed on the call, and what was previously echo'd on the lists.<o:p></o:p></p>
</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>