[cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

Wed Jun 1 13:16:11 MST 2016

If it is an issue about what  we discussed, I’m working on the  minutes and  should have  those  out tomorrow.

From: govreform-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 2:03 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>; vfournier at apple.com
Cc: Govreform at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

I’m not the expert here, but listening to Gerv, I thought the issue was about disclosure and the timing therein.  Ben knows more about this.

Dean

From: Kirk Hall [mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 4:02 PM
To: vfournier at apple.com <mailto:vfournier at apple.com> ; Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> >
Cc: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> >; Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
Subject: RE: [cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

Dean, I'm over my ski tips, but if you adopt a W3C-type IPR policy (based on participation), doesn't that avoid the RAND versus RAND-Z license issue?  I was under the impression that if you have a W3C type policy and don't participate on an issue or set of standards, you have no licensing obligations.  But for those who DO participate, we can retain our RAND policy as to them.  Or as Virginia says, have a royalty free license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

From: vfournier at apple.com <mailto:vfournier at apple.com>  [mailto:vfournier at apple.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 1:00 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> >
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> >; Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> >; Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

W3C is royalty-free.  Please see section 5 of the 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 12:54 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> > wrote:

Yes, but I think you missed the whole discussion on why the W3C IPR model isn't acceptable by most browsers. I believe it is a RAND policy vs. RAND-Z and that was a show stopper for Gerv and others.

-----Original Message-----
From: govreform-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org>  [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> >
Cc: Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

I didn't express myself well.  If we adopt a W3C type IPR, is there any necessity to create spinoff groups?  Or could we retain our current governance structure, where WGs do the work and create and approve guidelines, which then are forwarded to the Forum for approval in a ballot?  Any Member (CA or browser) that was worried about IPR conflict issues could choose not to participate in the WG, and could abstain on the ballot at the Forum level (and not engage in discussion at any level).

If we simply change our IPR in this way, we may not need to restructure the Forum -- under current rules, any interested person or organization can participate fully and equally at the WG level (so, applications, etc. can participate on code signing in that WG) - that is permitted today.

Also, by moving to a W3C IPR model, some new "browsers" (applications with trusted root stores) who have wanted to join the Forum but didn't like our IPR could probably join.

Wouldn't this be the easiest way to make the changes we have been discussing?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 11:17 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> >
Cc: vfournier at apple.com <mailto:vfournier at apple.com> ; Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

Kirk,

(1) Not applicable.

(2) A “W3C-type” IPR only makes sense where each working group has its own membership list and approves its own guidelines.  This would mean that each WG would be similar to today’s Forum — clear process to join and only WG members are allowed to contribute to the group (meaning sending emails to the WG list, joining calls and in-person meetings).

The full Forum should not be involved with “approving” or “endorsing” WG developed documents if a “W3C-type” IPR is used.

Thanks,
Peter

On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> > wrote:

+1

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>  [mailto:vfournier at apple.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> >
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> >; Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto: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:
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 <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.

Thanks,
Peter

_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160601/0f19d5d5/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4954 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160601/0f19d5d5/attachment-0001.bin 