[cabf_governance] Preliminary Work on Governance Models

[Virginia Fournier]

W3C and other SDOs have a participation-based model, where you only have licensing obligations for working groups that you participate in.  So it is possible.



Best regards,

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





On May 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:

If we maintain a single IPR Policy, is it possible to change when disclosure obligations kick in?  During the initial go-around on the IPR Policy, some participants wanted a model that didn’t obligate them for groups in which they weren’t participating.  We didn’t go to that model because we felt the work of the CABF was more intimate than other organizations.  If we grow into these subcategories, then maybe that premise changes.
  <>
From: vfournier at apple.com [mailto:vfournier at apple.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
Cc: govreform at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Preliminary Work on Governance Models
 
Hi Ben,
 
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
 
I think this needs further discussion that may be difficult to do via email.  Why would we want to complicate the organizational structure in this way?  What benefits would we expect to gain?  What about the current structure is not working and why?  Are there less disruptive ways to address those issues?
 
Also, what’s the impetus for considering different IP policies for different groups?  I think this would introduce a lot of complication and confusion into the system.  What goal(s) would different policies be attempting to address, and would the benefits outweigh the challenges?  How would IP policy maintenance and administration work for multiple IP tracks?
 
So, I think we need to decide where we want/need to go and why before we talk about how we’re going to get there.




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

 
On May 16, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>> wrote:
 
Prior to our face-to-face meeting next week, I think we have some preliminary matters that we should consider.  
 
For instance, do members prefer that the  CA/B Forum remain the umbrella organization (if we’re going to have an umbrella organization).  
 
Or should a new umbrella organization be created?  Consider these two diagrams:
<image001.png><image002.png>
 
 
 
The names are just placeholders.  Do we want to use “Forum”, “Working Group,” “Standing Committee”, “Subcommittee”, “Technical Committee”, etc?
 
Should governance policies/procedures be documented outside of the Bylaws in a document titled “Rules of Association”, “Operating Procedures”, or similar?
 
Should the umbrella organization have a Board of Directors/Trustees, Steering Committee, Leadership/Management Council, or similar?  If so, should there be two such upper-level bodies (Board and a Council) with differing responsibilities?
 
One reason for the approach taken above is that I am assuming we want committee/group structures with the ability of each committee/group to have a different IPR Policy.   Thoughts on this?  
 
Thanks,
 
Ben
_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160516/da77cee0/attachment-0001.html