[cabfpub] Draft Ballot re: participation of standards-setting, auditing, and regulatory body representatives

[i-barreira at izenpe.net]

In allusion :-)

When representing my comany, Izenpe, I´m somehow covered by the signed IPR (which I think I was the second to sign it) but when representing ETSI, I have no IPR covered because ETSI can´t sign this kind of IPR, in fact, ETSI does not sign IPRs with other entities, they reach some other liasions with these groups. In our case, there´s a Letter of Intent, which is the mínimum to have ETSI working on this "project".
As it´s of interest of the CABF to have their requirements and/or guidelines "translated" into standards and since the CABF asks ETSI tasks to do, then, another way of having ETSI onboard is needed.

In my particular case, in the last F2F meetings, I´ve been representing ETSI showing the results of the diferent ETSI projects to adapt the EV guidelines, STF412, and the baseline requirements, STF438, to the ETSI standards and that was it, but when needing to vote or express any opnion as a CA, I was representing Izenpe which has the IPR signed. 

Hope this can clarify something

Regards


Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.net
945067705


ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de Gervase Markham
Enviado el: viernes, 19 de octubre de 2012 14:42
Para: Robin Alden
CC: public at cabforum.org
Asunto: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot re: participation of standards-setting, auditing, and regulatory body representatives

On 19/10/12 12:34, Robin Alden wrote:
> Hi Gerv,
> 	Although this isn't really my area of expertise, surely people sign 
> the IPR in some particular capacity.
> If they are representing more than one organization then they need to 
> sign (or to be excused from signing) the IPR in each capacity in which 
> they act.
> https://www.cabforum.org/IPR_Agreement_V1.pdf

A fair point, indeed.

My proposed solution for people who wear two hats (one of which would need an IPR signature and one of which wouldn't) is to ask them to join with their IPR-signing hat - in other words, for their company to become a member. Then they can do both jobs once inside.

> The assumed difference between the nature of the contributions made by 
> a standards or regulatory body and the contributions made by us mere 
> mortals (CAs and Browsers and other Interested Parties) is that we 
> have 'tricks of the trade' that we might (or might not) have IP 
> protection over and which we might (or might not) want to have 
> incorporated into Guideline - whereas the standards or regulatory body 
> does not have tricks of the same trade.

Most of the time that's true; but I'm not sure you can ask Tim (to continue to use him as our hypothetical example) to forget everything he knows about Entrust while representing this standards body.

Gerv

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