[cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Wed Jun 1 10:50:39 MST 2016

If we are going to consider a participation-based model, I would again suggest looking at the W3C Patent Policy.  Section 3 addresses this issue:
 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/>

No point in reinventing the wheel, especially since the CAB Forum IP policy is substantially based on the W3C Patent Policy.

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>

On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> wrote:
> Toward the end of the governance discussion, Ryan said that one reason Google voted against the Code Signing ballot was because of our current IPR which applies whether a CABF Member participates on an issue or not.  If I understood correctly, Google might have abstained on the ballot if we had an IPR that only requires disclosure of IP if a member actually participates in a guideline, etc.
> Some of the Governance Working Group proposals to spin off sub-groups (like Code Signing, Document Signing, etc.) were proposed to allow each subgroup to adopt its own IPR, etc. – but any final product will have to come back to the Forum for a ballot and adoption (unless we let Working Groups adopt their own guidelines, without final Forum action).

I think this is the simplest solution.  The Forum approves the creation of Working Groups, including their charter, and then the WG operates autonomously, including voting for adoption.

> If we modify the Forum’s IPR so it becomes “participation only”, I wonder if that will greatly simplify the rest of the work of this committee.  Maybe the spinoffs, separate IPR policies, etc. won’t be necessary.  Remember, we already allow non-CAs and non-browsers to fully participate in Working Groups, so we are already allowing greater involvement at the Working Group level.
> Should we take another look at the Forum’s IPR as part of the governance discussion?

I think at least changing when the IPR applies has to be part of the governance discussion.  Maybe it needs to apply to WG members when the WG adopts a final WG guideline.


Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160601/780984f4/attachment.html 

More information about the Govreform mailing list