[cabfpub] Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope (Membership vs.Participation)

Wed Nov 14 19:24:20 UTC 2012

Hi,

SSC votes for option H.

Thanks,
M.D.

On 11/14/2012 6:00 PM, Dean Coclin wrote:
>
> Symantec votes as follows:
>
> First choice: Option C.
>
> We feel this is clean, clear and relatively easy to determine.
>
> Second choice: Option H
>
> Dean
>
> *From:*public-bounces at cabforum.org 
> <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> 
> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben Wilson
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:27 PM
> *To:* public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [cabfpub] Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope (Membership vs. 
> Participation)
>
> All,
>
> This email announces a straw poll.   Please respond before this time 
> next week.
>
> During the IPR Policy telephone call this week, the IPR group 
> discussed proposed language for defining when RF licensing would and 
> would not apply.  The current proposal would grant a safe-harbor from 
> RF licensing by using the following language:
>
> "Notwithstanding any other provision of this IPR Policy, only the 
> affirmative act of [technical participation] (or otherwise agreeing to 
> the licensing terms described here) will obligate a CAB Forum Member 
> to the CAB Forum RF License.  Mere membership in the CAB Forum alone, 
> without other factors, does not give rise to the CAB Forum RF License 
> obligation under this IPR Policy."
>
> The group requires input from the membership on how, and if/when, we 
> should define "technical participation".  We are conducting a straw 
> poll to help the group decide on the appropriate language. This straw 
> poll is based on the instant runoff ballot process (single 
> transferable vote) used during the governance reform.  The end result 
> of the ballot will be provided to the IPR group sometime next week.  
> Please choose your order of preference for each choice you are willing 
> to accept and respond to this email before next Thursday.  Entrust, 
> Identrust, RSA, T-Systems, PayPal, ETSI, and WebTrust should also 
> indicate their preferences, if they want, since whatever decision we 
> make might also apply to them.
>
> The choices are listed below.  Where applicable, "Contribution" will 
> be defined to mean "material, including Draft Guidelines, Draft 
> Guideline text, and modifications to other Contributions, made 
> verbally or in a tangible form of expression (including in electronic 
> media) which is provided by a Participant in the process of developing 
> a Draft Guideline for the purpose of incorporating such material into 
> a Draft Guideline or a Final Guideline. For a verbal contribution to 
> be deemed a Contribution hereunder it must be memorialized within 
> approved meeting minutes of the CAB Forum."
>
> For your response, where applicable, replace the bracketed phrase 
> "[technical participation]" above with the quoted language below:
>
> A --- "technical participation, as defined by rules of the CAB Forum".
>
> Rationale: Reinstating the members who left is of the utmost urgency. 
> They would like a provision that distinguishes the type of 
> participation that would give rise to an RF licensing obligation.  We 
> can find a definition that works well for the Forum and all its 
> members once a new IPR policy is adopted and the governance reform is 
> complete and the members who left are able to provide input.
>
> B --- "making a Contribution or Voting on any matter on which a vote 
> is sought concerning a Guideline".
>
> Rationale: Members should not be able to contribute to work product or 
> vote on work product without either filing exclusion notices or 
> granting an RF license.  This is necessary to ensure that the Forum 
> doesn't pass guidelines containing patented material.
>
> C --- "making a Contribution or Voting in favor of a Guideline".
>
> Rationale: There is little risk in members voting "No" or "Abstain" 
> since that cannot result in the adoption of patented subject 
> material.  Therefore, members should be able to vote against 
> guidelines without triggering the IPR policy requirements.
>
> D --- "making a Contribution".
>
> Rationale: Voting does not influence the actual contents of the 
> Forum's work product and does not add to a document's requirements. By 
> the time a vote occurs, the Forum should have already determined 
> whether the document covers a member's IP rights.   Therefore, all 
> members should be able to vote on a guideline without triggering IPR 
> policy requirements.
>
> E --- "making a Contribution", provided that the following sentence of 
> the section is modified to read, "Mere membership in the CAB Forum 
> alone, without other factors, does not give rise to the CAB Forum RF 
> License obligation under this IPR Policy, unless the Member votes in 
> favor of the Guideline having personal knowledge that it contains an 
> Essential Claim that has not been disclosed to the CAB Forum."
>
> Rationale: The goal of the IPR policy is to ensure that all members 
> are aware of the IP that might touch on a final guideline. Plus, 
> voting does not influence the actual contents of the Forum's work 
> product and does not add to a document's requirements.  As long as a 
> member isn't aware of any hidden IP, permitting the member to vote on 
> a guideline does not risk compromising the IPR's intended goal of 
> disclosure and avoiding the adoption of guidelines containing patented 
> material.
>
> F --- "making a Contribution to the Guideline, Voting in favor of the 
> Guideline, joining a Working Group (if one is chartered to develop the 
> Guideline), or attending 3 or more meetings during which the Guideline 
> was discussed"
>
> Rationale: Limiting member participation for those unwilling to abide 
> by the IPR will prevent bad actors from obtaining IP rights on 
> upcoming guidelines.  This language prevents members from running to 
> the patent office to file a patent on upcoming work product and 
> prevents a member from, directly or indirectly, inserting IP covered 
> provisions in work product.
>
> G --- "making a Contribution or attending one (1) face-to-face meeting 
> or more than three (3) meetings remotely in the 12-month period 
> preceding the adoption of the Guideline"
>
> Rationale: The specific provisions in Guidelines change and what is an 
> Essential Claim may change leading up to adoption. Therefore, the real 
> risk of a member filing a patent on proposed material is during the 12 
> months prior to adoption.  Limiting participation to this threshold 
> would allow a member that doesn't participate much, but wants to vote 
> on guidelines, to maintain its membership without having the 
> obligations of the Forum's IPR policy apply as long as its 
> participation does not go above a certain level.  Once the document 
> heads towards adoption, member participation is restricted to prevent 
> inclusion of patent encumbered provisions and prevent the possibility 
> of filing new patents covering proposed guideline material.
>
> H --- No change (CABF members grant RF license unless they comply with 
> Section 4).
>
> Rationale: The IPR is intended to prevent the Forum from adopting 
> guidelines that contain patent-controlled material of members.  
> Providing a safe-harbor limits this requirement and counters the 
> original intent behind the IPR's adoption. Members are free to adopt 
> the current IPR, but the Guidelines are few and easy enough to review 
> that special accommodations should not be provided simply because a 
> member owns IP.
>
> I --- Other.  (Please provide a suggested solution and explanation on 
> why none of the other options satisfactorily address your concerns)
>
> Rationale: None of the suggested paths meet the Forum's needs.  The 
> Forum needs to focus on a different solution to the problem.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121114/d9ccaacf/attachment-0004.html>