[cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrust.com
Wed Jun 1 10:56:22 MST 2016


As I recall from the original IPR discussions, it was mainly the browsers who insisted we adopt an IPR for the Forum.  I remember there was discussion of a “participation” type IPR, such as the W3C model, and there was some hesitation on whether or not we could keep adequate records (minutes, drafts, and votes on ballots) to be able to track who participated, and who did not.

So two threshold questions (mainly for the browsers):

(1) Did you oppose a W3C-type participation IPR when the Forum first adopted its current IPR?  If so, do you remember why?

(2) Would you now favor moving to a W3C-type participation IPR?

From: vfournier at apple.com [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>; Govreform at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

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:

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<mailto:pzb at amzn.com>> wrote:

On Jun 1, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com<mailto: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<mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160601/4af3ca85/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Govreform mailing list