[Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Tue Mar 26 10:46:41 UTC 2024
On 26/3/2024 10:39 π.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote:
>
> Yes and no.
>
I don't understand how you gave this interpretation. Your email is out
of scope of the infrastructure SC charter
<https://cabforum.org/about/information/infrastructure-committee/>.
However, I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.
> As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related to the
> infrastructure group as such,
>
Exactly.
> but there are things that need to be discussed, like templates, change
> the bylaws (i.e., which public group?
>
Discussions for changing the Bylaws must take place at the forum-level
public mailing list. The infrastructure SC is more oriented to technical
tasks, not policy. It cannot answer questions about possible
interpretations of the Bylaws. We have the Forum-level public list for that.
The last part (i.e., which public group) is not very clear to me. What
is the concern or the question?
> The WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or
> general?)
>
If this is a question for how to interpret the Bylaws or the IPR policy,
it needs to be asked at the Forum-level public list.
> , wiki info, etc.
>
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "wiki info".
> This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for
> the infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed)
> but some can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how
> to deal with these matters.
>
Since the infrastructure SC is a subset the Forum-level, a simple way to
approach this is that if you have a list of questions, out of which some
are in scope of the infrastructure SC and some are not, you must send
all the questions to the Forum-level list. This will give the
opportunity for all Members (including the infrastructure SC members) to
discuss these questions in one mailing list.
If you are not certain whether a question is or is not in scope of the
infrastructure SC, you can "fail-close" and send to the Forum-level list.
Does that clarify things at least about the scoping of the WGs/SCs?
Thanks,
Dimitris.
>
> *De:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>
> *Enviado el:* lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
> *Para:* Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>; Inigo Barreira
> <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com>; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure
> <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
> *Asunto:* Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
> and know the content is safe.
>
>
> 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>
> <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.
>
> 1. This exclusion notice contains 7 patents
>
> 1. #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. #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010,
> granted in 2011 and expires in 2027
> 3. #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. #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via
> partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015
> and expires in 2033
> 5. #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate
> status via partner browser plugin): Created in 2010,
> granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
> 6. #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via
> partner browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017
> and expires in 2031
> 7. #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.
>
> 2. All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under
> column License Grant Election Made
> 3. All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 does
> not touch the EVGs but the TLS BRs
> 4. In the wiki IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki
> (cabforum.org)
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cabforum.org%2Fbooks%2Fforum%2Fpage%2Fipr-policy-exclusion-notices&data=05%7C02%7CInigo.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C63ecc355d89d43f0aa7208dc4d0a78ac%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638469954591537768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D0YH%2B9nNcF6XJ7sZzeZfc8ZxKhWcHih%2B2Hoc4bIu93w%3D&reserved=0>,
> there´re some exclusion notices filled but:
>
> 1. 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cabforum.org%2Fbooks%2Fsmime-certificate-wg%2Fpage%2Fgodaddy&data=05%7C02%7CInigo.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C63ecc355d89d43f0aa7208dc4d0a78ac%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638469954591555614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v%2F9ABG73f82WbHml%2FvKMbdvKm2MdZl3UVHAq9L4BFPk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 2. Regarding the other patents I think those are new ones.
> 3. 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.
> 4. 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.
>
> 5. Can this exclusion notice file be considered wrong due to
> referencing the EVGs instead of the BRs which is what SC70 is
> touching?
> 6. Can this exclusion notice file considered invalid because of
> the inclusion of a patent (#7) not related to GoDaddy?
> 7. 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?
> 8. 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 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Finfrastructure&data=05%7C02%7CInigo.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C63ecc355d89d43f0aa7208dc4d0a78ac%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638469954591569120%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eZ488c3hl1zNWof8WyT4QXK26FYlPhyseiBy3Gj4pDY%3D&reserved=0>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20240326/d22e4fd7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Infrastructure
mailing list