[cabf_governance] Changes to IPRA in Ballot 206

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Thu Jan 18 16:42:33 MST 2018

Actually, I think that amendment may satisfy my concerns about our current language (which says that “Participants” only includes “entities” that are Forum members, and so probably does not include Interested Parties).

I’m wondering why the revised definition below uses the word “may”:

Interested Parties and Associate Members may be considered “Participants” for purposes of Working Group participation, ***

I think they actually will always be considered “Participants” if they sign the IPR Agreement, right?  That’s why we make them sign, and that’s what will bind them to the requirements of the IPR Agreement.  Should we change “may be considered” to “are”?

Interested Parties and Associate Members are “Participants” for purposes of their Working Group participation, ***

From: vfournier at apple.com [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:27 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabf_governance] Changes to IPRA in Ballot 206

Hi Kirk,

There is already an amendment to the IPR Policy with Ballot 206, so we can fix this now.  We’ve newly added the definition of “Participant” in the proposed Amendment, and it already includes “Interested Parties.”  Please see the proposed definition below:

j.  “Participant” means a Member who is participating in one or more Working Groups of the CAB Forum, together with its Affiliates.  Interested Parties and Associate Members may be considered “Participants” for purposes of Working Group participation, but they do not gain any CAB Forum membership privileges thereby.

I think the last part about “CAB Forum membership privileges” could be more clear.  I believe what we were thinking is that Interested Parties might have  voting rights in a Working Group, but not at the Forum level.

Please let me know if this addresses your concern.

Best regards,

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

On Jan 15, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Kirk Hall via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>> wrote:

Based on the discussion last week, it seems pretty clear to me that Interested Parties (whether individuals or entities) are NOT bound by signing our IPRA because under the IPRA only “Participants” are bound, and Participants are defined as “entities” who are “Members” of the Forum.

I think maybe we can fix this simply be changing the definition of Participants.  Are you open to including this change in Ballot 206?  I only ask this because it’s a major big deal to make changes to the IPRA and get people to re-sign the individual forms….

If not in Ballot 206, can do a parallel ballot so the IPRA changes occur at the same time, and only one re-signing is needed?
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180118/28860d0f/attachment.html>

More information about the Govreform mailing list