<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:#1F497D;}
.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;color:#1F497D'>All I’m suggesting is that the PAG make a recommendation as to whether or not a ballot to extend the deadline and clarify the submission procedure is in order. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The PAG could come back and say:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>(a) Nope, everything is fine the way it is, no ballot is recommended or<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>(b) Propose a ballot to extend the deadline and specify that the exclusion notices be posted publicly<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The PAG is made up of attorneys from both our companies as well as several others and I think would be in the best position to decide which way to go.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><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> Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:42 PM<br><b>To:</b> Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin@symantec.com><br><b>Cc:</b> CABFPub <public@cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Dean,<o:p></o:p></p><p>Based on the advice we've received, I don't believe that would be useful. The matter is unlikely to be able to be settled by the Forum - in the event of lawsuit, it will have to be resolved by adjudication. While individual members and their counsel may have differing opinions as to the appropriateness of the exclusions, the Forum itself cannot offer a legal opinion. The possibilities would be to update the Bylaws or propose a new ballot, and that's a significant enough activity that it would likely require a separate exploration.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 4, 2016 9:55 AM, "Dean Coclin" <<a href="mailto:Dean_Coclin@symantec.com">Dean_Coclin@symantec.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'><p class=MsoNormal>Ben-I think it may be worthwhile to convene another session of the current PAG<br>to come up with a recommendation on how to handle the discrepancies discussed.<br>I don't think it benefits the forum or the public to have different<br>interpretations of exclusion notice validities and hence I would recommend the<br>PAG work on this as a final item.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Dean<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Gervase Markham [mailto:<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>]<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:51 PM<br>To: Dean Coclin <<a href="mailto:Dean_Coclin@symantec.com">Dean_Coclin@symantec.com</a>>; CABFPub <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On 03/05/16 18:11, Dean Coclin wrote:<br>> Gerv,<br>> I think you make my point by using the word, "seems" in front of both<br>> conclusions that you draw.<br><br>Sorry, I was being British and understating. My point is that it doesn't seem<br>that the rules were ambiguous.<br><br>> Why force participants to draw inexact conclusions when we can easily<br>> fix this with a ballot.<br><br>If you want to fix this with a ballot, without saying I support such a move,<br>the best ballot would be the most limited - the one which rules on precisely<br>the two disclosures which are in question.<br><br>> I'm actually surprised that our IPR policy, given past and numerous<br>> discussions about making all things CA/B Forum public, only says that<br>> the exclusion notice has to be provided to the Chair. Am I the only<br>> one amazed by that? Am I misinterpreting something?<br><br>It is a little surprising, but the CAB Forum has been on a journey towards<br>greater transparency, and sometimes the consequences of rare things are<br>missed.<br><br>Gerv<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>