[Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

Mon Mar 25 20:30:40 UTC 2024

These matters should be discussed at the respective WG. The 
Infrastructure subcommittee is not related with this exclusion notice.

Inigo, I suggest you forward these messages to the servercert-wg mailing 
list and continue the discussion there.

Thank you,
Dimitris.

On 25/3/2024 9:24 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:
>
> I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, 
> not you. They may come to the same conclusions, but it’s better to be 
> done that way.
>
> I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the issues 
> at hand.
>
>
> Dean
>
> *From:*Infrastructure <infrastructure-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure
> *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
> *To:* Ben Wilson via Infrastructure <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled
>
> Hi all,
>
> I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not 
> the right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the 
> management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an 
> “interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents 
> even not working now for GoDaddy.
>
> The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, 
> that an exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I 
> have some questions, some regarding the procedure and some others 
> regarding the exclusion notice itself and what we have in the wiki.
>
> As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):
>
>  1. /If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
>     described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then *the results of
>     the Initial Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and
>     void*, and;/
>
> /a. *A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed*, in accordance with 
> Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG will 
> make a conclusion as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and 
> communicate such conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member 
> Mail List and the Public Mail List; and/
>
> /b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and 
> endorsers decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:/
>
>      1. /The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the
>         Draft Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the steps
>         described in Sections 2.4(2) through (4) above, replacing the
>         “Initial Vote” with a “Second Vote.” If a Draft Guidelines
>         Ballot passes the Second Vote, then the results of the Second
>         Vote are deemed to be final and approved. Draft Guidelines
>         then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance
>         Guidelines, as designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The
>         Chair will notify the Public Mail List of the approval, as
>         well as update the public website of Final Guidelines and
>         Final Maintenance Guidelines; or/
>      2. /The proposer and endorsers make changes to the Draft
>         Guidelines Ballot, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be
>         proposed, and must go through the steps described in Sections
>         2.3(1) through (9) above./
>
> So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is considered 
> null, there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to be formed. I 
> added this topic to the WG call agenda for next Thursday (I won´t be 
> running the call because I´m on holidays for Easter) and I was going 
> to send an email to the SC public list indicating that the ballot is 
> null (BTW, we don´t have any kind of template to make such 
> communication). Is this the right interpretation of the bylaws?
>
> OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found that 
> would like to share.
>
>   * This exclusion notice contains 7 patents
>       o #1 (Method for a web site with a proxy domain name
>         registration to receive a secure socket layer certificate):
>         Created in 2004 (there were no BRs at that time), granted in
>         2010 and expires in 2017
>       o #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted
>         in 2011 and expires in 2027
>       o #3 (Methods and systems for dynamic updates of digital
>         certificates via subscription): Created in 2004 (there were no
>         BRs at that time), granted in 2013 and expires in 2030
>       o #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via
>         partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and
>         expires in 2033
>       o #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status
>         via partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015
>         and expires in 2033
>       o #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
>         browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires
>         in 2031
>       o #7 (Method and system for managing secure custom domains):
>         Created in 2017, granted in 2018 and expires in 2037. This was
>         initially filed and assigned to Lantirn INC and later to the
>         Bank of Canada. GoDaddy is not listed anywhere.
>   * All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under column
>     License Grant Election Made
>   * All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 does not
>     touch the EVGs but the TLS BRs
>   * In the wiki IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki (cabforum.org)
>     <https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/forum/page/ipr-policy-exclusion-notices>,
>     there´re some exclusion notices filled but:
>       o Patent #1 declared in this PDF is already listed in the wiki
>         but with a slightly different number but under “willing to
>         license” it says “unstated”.
>
> GoDaddy 
> <https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/smime-certificate-wg/page/godaddy>
>
> 	
>
> 31-July-2012
>
> 	
>
> US Pat. No.7,702,902
>
> 	
>
> Unspecified
>
> 	
>
> Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to receive 
> a secure socket layer certificate
>
> 	
>
> Unstated
>
>       o Regarding the other patents I think those are new ones.
>       o In the wiki list, there are some repeated (i.e., Generating
>         PKI email accounts on a web-based email system) with different
>         patent numbers, which I don´t know if it´s an error or on purpose.
>       o Clicking on the PDF for the “GoDaddy patent exclusion notice”
>         it goes nowhere, there´s an error because the page is not
>         found. Same happens when you go to Discloser column (first
>         column) and click on GoDaddy
>
> With all of this, and of course, waiting for the conclusion from the 
> PAG, I´d like to provide some thoughts and a preliminary opinion.
>
>   * Can this exclusion notice file be considered wrong due to
>     referencing the EVGs instead of the BRs which is what SC70 is
>     touching?
>   * Can this exclusion notice file considered invalid because of the
>     inclusion of a patent (#7) not related to GoDaddy?
>   * What´s the reason for this exclusion notice in general,
>     considering is indicated the EVGs and not the BRs? Just to add
>     them to the wiki?
>   * In the wiki there´re no reasons stated for example for #1 but in
>     this PDF file is indicated that no license granted, what to do in
>     this case?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20240325/041d1e5a/attachment-0001.html>