[cabf_governance] Who Must Sign the IPR?
jimmy at it.auth.gr
Thu Jun 14 11:35:17 MST 2018
Just to clarify, ACAB-c is comprised of Accredited CABs only, not TSPs.
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.
> ✉︎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:
> 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.
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Govreform