[Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

Tue Mar 26 08:40:53 UTC 2024

Thanks Dean. Yes, that´s the idea and it has been included as the only topic
for the Thursday call (unfortunately I won´t attend it and I think Kiran
will run it).

De: Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com> 
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 20:24
Para: Inigo Barreira <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com>; Ben Wilson via
Infrastructure <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
Asunto: RE: SC70 exclusion notice filled

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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and void, and;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

*	#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
*	#2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted in 2011
and expires in 2027
*	#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
*	#4 (Website secure certificate status determination via partner
browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
*	#5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in
2033
*	#6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires in 2031
*	#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
<https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/forum/page/ipr-policy-exclusion-notices>
IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki (cabforum.org), there´re some
exclusion notices filled but:

*	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”. 

 <https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/smime-certificate-wg/page/godaddy> 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

*	Regarding the other patents I think those are new ones.
*	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.
*	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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20240326/d6510a9a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20240326/d6510a9a/attachment-0001.p7s>