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

[Ben Wilson]

Eddy,

 

Although I agree with you (I hate this just as much as the next person), but that is not the world we live and work in, so the option of “No IPR Policy/Agreement” is not an option.  If you’d like, we could write an explanatory guide or annotated version for laypersons that explains what each provision means, why it was chosen, and how it applies.  (If we did, some of the explanatory material would come from “Standards Development Patent Policy Manual” and I’m sure we could find similar guidance somewhere on the internet.)  

 

Regardless of whether we change the IPR Policy, there are several things we have to work through in the existing unmodified IPR Policy as well.  Two issues come immediately to mind that we have not implemented even though it has been 3 and one half months since the IPR Policy became effective:  (1) pursuant to section 7 we were supposed to launch four Patent Advisory Groups to review over 60 patents that have been excluded and decide whether a specific provision of the EV Guidelines or Baseline Requirements should be rescinded; and (2) under Section 4.1, I was supposed to have initiated a 30-day Review Period on Ballots 83 (Network Security), 88 (ISO 3166 Country Names), and 93 (Reasons for Revocation).  Because I have not done that yet, I will do that today.  Going forward all ballots will need to include a Notice of Review Period.   

 

Also going forward we should also note in ballots who Contributors were, regardless of whether they are the endorsers or makers of the motion.  This may require that our ballots not cover multiple areas like what happened in Ballot 92 with PayPal’s portion getting mixed in with those other contributors.

 

Thoughts?

 

I’ll add this to the agenda I’m working on for Monday.

 

Ben

 

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:16 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Tally of Results of Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope (Membership vs. Participation)

 


On 11/16/2012 05:50 PM, From Ben Wilson: 

Digidentity, Izenpe, Logius, Microsoft, Mozilla, SSC, StartCom, Trend Micro, and Trustwave, would you continue to participate if the IPR were changed in the way proposed or would you refuse to sign the IPR agreement? 


We'd know that once the agreement is out - under some circumstances I could image to be without an IPR agreement is better than with. But I'm not the legal expert to say that.




Regards 


 


Signer: 

Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO


 

StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org> 


XMPP: 

startcom at startcom.org


Blog: 

Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org> 


Twitter: 

Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg> 


 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121116/2b2d5bb5/attachment-0004.html>