[cabf_governance] Who Must Sign the IPR?

Thu Jun 14 11:35:17 MST 2018

Just to clarify, ACAB-c is comprised of Accredited CABs only, not TSPs.

Dimitris.

On 14/6/2018 9:19 μμ, Virginia Fournier via Govreform wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Would you please also summarize the ETSI issue you raised on the call 
> today?  I’m not sure whether you were objecting to the discussion of 
> the issue on today’s call, the MOU previously signed with ETSI, not 
> discussing the issue directly with ETSI, having ETSI sign the IPR 
> agreement, or something else.  Is it just what you’ve mentioned below? 
>  I’d appreciate your summary so the Governance Reform WG can determine 
> how to address it.  Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏669-227-9595
> ✉︎vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Ryan Sleevi via Govreform 
> <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
> (I'm not sure if I have posting rights on govreform, so this may only 
> go to the named parties)
>
> Thanks for this summary Ben. To capture the other part of the F2F 
> discussion and this and the previous call, it sounds like there's two 
> separate-but-highly-related challenges.
>
> First is confusion about who must sign the IPR, whether participating 
> as an Interested Party, an Associate Member, or a full Forum member. 
> Examples of this confusion have manifest in several discussions, in 
> which some members expressed confusion as to how to best handle it, 
> such as:
> - For interested parties, whether an individual signature is 
> sufficient or whether that individuals employer(s) must also sign
> - For associate members, the process for waiving the IPR agreement, as 
> covered in Section 3.1 of the Bylaws
> - For associate members, how to handle various industry groups, such as:
>   - CPA Canada's WebTrust TF, which is comprised of volunteers from 
> firms such as KPMG, Deloitte, and BDO, but also has representatives 
> from CPA Canada itself
>   - ACAB-c, which has a number of European conformance assessment 
> bodies (auditors) and European CAs (which themselves may be members of 
> the Forum)
>   - ETSI, which is comprised of Member Organizations that may meet any 
> of our other definitions, and which may have individuals that are 
> employed by ETSI member organizations, but are not representing their 
> Member Organization
>
> Second, there is confusion about the nature and scope of participation 
> in CA/Browser Forum calls and F2Fs. This confusion roughly follows the 
> examples illustrated above, but to more firmly document.
>   - WebTrust is administered by CPA Canada, and thus we'd expect CPA 
> Canada employees and consultants to be able to participate (e.g. Don 
> Sheehy, Gord Beal). However, the Task Force is made up of volunteers 
> from auditing firms, and whether or not the recognition of AM also 
> extends to those members and their employees. Jeff Ward, as Chair of 
> the TF, while employed by BDO, has been a steady participant in Forum 
> F2F, but whether this invitation extends to the entire TF, or their 
> member organizations, was a point of confusion.
>   - ACAB-c is an organization made up of many European TSPs and CABs. 
> Does recognition of ACAB-c as an Associate Member extend invitations 
> to all of these organizations, and their employees, to also 
> participate in the F2F
>   - ETSI, as a member organization, is made up of a large number of 
> members. Does invitation only extend to those employeed directly by 
> ETSI, or does it also include those who participate in or lead the 
> various focus groups within ETSI?
>
> Note that there was a separate discussion on that second point related 
> to Members (such as whether any employee of an organization can be in 
> charge of voting or participate in Forum F2F, or whether there should 
> be a notion of designated representatives), but that's not nearly as 
> urgent or pressing as these above matters are.
>
> My hope is that through discussion in the Governance Reform WG and 
> telecons, there can be a mutually agreed upon and documented 
> understanding as to:
> - A common understanding of the 'complex' cases (the above may be 
> woefully insufficient)
> - Who signs the IPR Agreements for these complex cases
> - What concerns, if any, exist with those guidelines by the member 
> organizations (e.g. concerns of Proviti / US Government, or of ETSI 
> and its members)
> - Agreement on the process and procedures for any exceptions that 
> might be granted under the Bylaws Section 3.1, such as:
>   - The chair decides
>   - Assent on a meeting (F2F or telecon), the same as done for members 
> that meet the requirements
>   - Full Forum votes
>
>
> Hopefully that accurately and appropriately captures the discussions 
> to date, in order to frame possible work items.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com 
> <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>> wrote:
>
>     Group,
>
>     An issue from the London face-to-face meeting resurfaced today on
>     the CABF call.  That is, who must sign the IPR agreement?  I
>     believe that many members of the CABF would like a recommendation
>     from this working group.
>
>     I think it has been pretty clear, at least in practice, that
>     someone with authority for an organization that is a member must
>     sign the IPR agreement.  For Interested Parties who are
>     individuals, their signature on the IPR Agreement is pretty
>     straightforward. But things get a little fuzzy when we deal with
>     other scenarios.  The most unclear situation is when we are
>     dealing with associations of other organizations and individuals –
>     viz. ETSI and WebTrust who send representatives to  our meetings. 
>     Another example is where an entity appoints another entity as its
>     agent (recognized representative) for discussions/votes.  For this
>     latter situation, a side issue is what should we require as
>     evidence of the agency relationship.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180614/ba5eb879/attachment.html>