<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi Chris,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/3/2024 5:32 μ.μ., Chris Clements
via Servercert-wg wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0100018e5230ff78-4f29b22a-de3a-4b5a-aeb8-b1a82383bec7-000000@email.amazonses.com">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,16,26);font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Intellectual
Property (IP) Disclosure</span><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,16,26);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">:</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,16,26);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
While not a Server Certificate Working Group Member,
researchers from Princeton University presented at
Face-to-Face 58, provided academic expertise, and highlighted
publicly-available peer-reviewed research to support Members
in drafting this ballot.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,16,26);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
The Princeton University researchers indicate that they have
not filed for any patents relating to their MPIC work and do
not plan to do so in the future.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,16,26);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
Princeton University has indicated that it is unable to agree
to the CA/Browser Forum IPR agreement because it could
encumber inventions invented by researchers not involved in
the development of MPIC or with the CA/B Forum.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,16,26);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
Princeton University has instead provided the attached IPR
statement. Pursuant to the IPR statement, Princeton University
has granted a worldwide royalty free license to the
intellectual property in MPIC developed by the researchers and
has made representations regarding its lack of knowledge of
any other Princeton intellectual property needed to implement
MPIC.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
For clarity, Princeton University’s IPR statement is NOT
intended to replace the Forum’s IPR agreement or allow
Princeton to participate in the Forum in any capacity.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
Members seeking legal advice regarding this ballot should
consult their own counsel.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the first time the Forum and a Chartered Working Group goes
through a ballot with essential contributions coming from a
non-Member. At the last F2F meeting, we discussed about possibly
allowing fewer days for the IPR review in certain cases, and many
Members felt that this would create problems because legal
departments need time to review these documents. My interpretation
is that Organizations that participate in the Forum are very
sensitive when it comes to IP issues.<br>
<br>
I would therefore suggest that the discussion period takes <b>at
least 30 days</b> (similar to the time it takes for the IPR review
period to end for Maintenance Guidelines), so that Members have time
to provide information to their legal departments regarding the
commitment by Princeton from January 11, 2024, and see if there are
any objections or concerns raised. All members will ultimately have
to accept the proposed IPR solution offered by Princeton before the
ballot enters its voting period. I hope this sounds reasonable and
fair. <br>
<br>
At the same time, we can continue discussing the proposed language
that updates the BRs.<br>
<br>
Other Members that are sensitive on this matter can also speak up
about this suggested process so we can proceed with caution and
minimize the IP risks.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>