[cabfpub] Observer Status

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

Jeremy - Trend Micro was never particularly in support of requiring an IPR for Forum members, but since others were we went along with it and signed it.  Regrettably, we have lost some Forum members now because their companies felt they could not sign the IPR agreement.

I may be misreading what you are saying, but we think that "observers" (non-members) who are allowed to participate and contribute in any fashion (in person or on the list-serv) must sign some form of IPR as a condition to that form of contribution -- otherwise, why are we excluding former members who wouldn't sign the IPR agreement?  The hypothetical danger exists for both former members and observers who fail to sign an IPR agreement -- if they contribute ideas, they may be adding materials covered by patents they own, creating potential conflicts in the future.

We think that observers must sign the IPR agreement to contribute ideas or comments.  Otherwise, they should be limited to simply observing (i.e., reading) what is posted on the public list-serv and on the Forum website.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:09 AM
To: 'Gervase Markham'; Carsten.Dahlenkamp at t-systems.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Observer Status

The proposal containing rules for observers was placed on hold once governance reform began.  As such, we don't have clear guidelines on what constitutes an observer or how an observer participates in the Forum.  Also, there isn't an exemption for observers in the IPR document.  Therefore, we have a few options.  Unfortunately, each of them require a Forum vote which means these entities will be excluded from the Forum until at least next Thursday when we can take a vote.  

I propose that we move forward by allowing former members to participate as observers in the IPR discussions and IPR working group without requiring a commitment to the IPR.  We can permit the Forum to approve observers by a majority vote during a teleconference in the same ballot next week.  Also, let's not remove anyone from any email lists yet.  Does anyone disagree with this approach?  

Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Carsten.Dahlenkamp at t-systems.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Observer Status

On 01/08/12 16:47, Carsten.Dahlenkamp at t-systems.com wrote:
> Colleagues,
> 
> as discussed before, today T-Systems will loss CAB-Forum’s full 
> membership, as we did not make it to sign the IPR policy until now. We 
> will knock on the door again once we have everything in place ;-)
> 
> Until then, we would like to apply for a kind of observer status, as 
> Tom mentioned during the IPR discussion a week ago or so.
> 
> Is there already a shared view, what this status means – what rights 
> and responsibilities?
> 
> Do we have to apply for the public mailing list again, or won’t be 
> removed at this point?

Paypal is currently an observer, I believe?

It would be most helpful if someone could outline what part of our rules etc. allows for this, and what the rights and responsibilities are.

If it turns out there are none, then perhaps we need some...

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.