[cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution

[Marc Braner]

I think we need to go back to v. 1.03 and solve these most recent issues outside of the IPR policy.

v 1.03 was a carefully orchestrated attempt at addressing the issues raised by the members who failed to sign without alienating the members that have signed. The Committee was operated on an open basis, all views were considered and a consensus was reached among those parties that cared enough to participate. 

The recent versions have, in my opinion, gone too far afield from the agreed upon document.

1.03 is consistent with the governance policy and bylaws that have been adopted. As I have said a number of times, we have been working on this for 2.5 years and it is time to put a stake in the ground.

I propose dealing with the what is means to participate issue separately. Should I set up a meeting to discuss?

Sent from my iPhone
Marc J. Braner
Senior Standards Counsel
Apple, Inc
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
mbraner at apple.com

On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:

> For further discussion, here is a revised draft of the IPR Policy redlined from Marc Braner’s draft of 19-Oct-2012.  It contemplates that the governance bylaws will be adopted with a provision covering the creation of Working Groups.  The draft of the governance bylaws previously circulated stated, “The Forum shall not be required to submit any matter to a Working Group, but may itself draft requirements and guidelines without a Working Group in its discretion.”  This provision might need to be edited so that the IPR Policy and Bylaws are consistent.
>  
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:31 PM
> To: public at cabforum.org; CABFMAN
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution
>  
> All,
> Just as an update on the progress of the draft of the IPR Policy, there are still some revisions being discussed regarding: the definition of “participation,” CAB Forum work groups, the safeharbor from stand-around RF licensing, and misunderstandings about the scope of the IPR.  I believe that the IPR committee will be re-working the draft based on the work that they have previously done, and hopefully, some more edits will bring us closer to a resolution of this matter.  I’d urge anyone interested in this issue to contribute to the discussion, whether it is on this list or by joining and participating in the work of the IPR committee. 
> Ben
>  
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:47 AM
> To: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: [cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution
>  
> All,
>  
> During the discussion yesterday on the IPR Policy, we noted a potential gap in distinguishing conduct giving rise to RF licensing versus other involvement in the CA/Browser Forum (what some have called “Stand-Around Liability”).  To recap this morning’s discussion, Marc Braner explained that the IPR working group had met for over two months and created version 1.03 to address the concerns of Entrust, Identrust, and others, while trying to make as few changes as possible in order to not lose members who have already signed.  He said that in his opinion we may now have a viable solution for everyone, but that there is no such thing as a perfect IPR Policy.  Also, there is nothing that precludes further work on the IPR Policy down the road, but it is very important that we get a new IPR Policy in place. 
>  
> As a general matter, there were only two major changes to the existing IPR Policy-- (1) to make licensing obligations participation-based to address stand-around liability, and (2) to change the definition of affiliates for portfolios of companies that are indirectly related.  The goal of the participation-based model, is that if you don’t participate, there is no obligation.  If you do participate, then you have a duty to license, but you also have the opportunity to exclude IP from licensing. 
>  
> There was extensive discussion on what should constitute participation.  In response, I’ve attempted to keep “participation” simple by defining it as either (a) making a “Contribution”, which is already a defined term in the IPR Policy, or (b) by voting on a Final Guideline.  Other options discussed earlier today included attending two technical working group meetings and segmenting Forum discussions into working groups (including a general discussion group for non-technical discussions).  I felt that these approaches would be too complicated to define, so instead of using the yet-to-be-defined term “technical work group,” from the IPR committee’s draft, I have changed the term to “Technical Participation” throughout the document.  Because of grammar constraints in some places, I’ve used “Contribution or vote” instead of “Technical Participation”, but Technical Participation is also defined in the definitions (contributing or voting), so there is internal consistency.    
>  
> There was much concern that we review and discuss the IPR thoroughly before moving forward.  We cannot risk moving forward only to find out at the last minute that some member cannot sign.  Dean suggested that Entrust, Identrust, and others should be involved in the discussion as well.  I do not know how to accomplish this given the current configurations of the listserv.  I made various attempts to send this email while cc’ing the IPR representatives of Apple, Symantec, Microsoft, Entrust and Identrust, so if someone can figure a way, let me know.
>  
> Finally, at this point, I would like to get all potential issues fleshed out.  As I said on the call, “speak now or forever hold your peace,” but equally, as many have noted during the work on this IPR Policy, it is unlikely that everyone will be 100% satisfied with this IPR, so when you comment also indicate if you consider your particular issue to be a true “deal killer.”   If you do not indicate any true “deal killers”, then we’ll all assume that you will be prepared to sign the IPR Agreement when it is presented to your organization for signature. 
>  
> Attached please find a redlined version of the IPR Policy and a draft IPR Resolution, to which I’ve added a provision exempting designated representatives of standards or regulatory bodies. 
>  
> Ben
> <CABForumIPR_103112-btw.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121031/c02d005d/attachment-0003.html>