[cabfpub] Call for PAG members

[Ryan Sleevi]

As with Gerv's clarifications, just to clarify, I'll also be participating
:)

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
wrote:

> As discussed on today’s call, the Forum is requesting volunteers from its
> membership to serve on the Patent Advisory Group (PAG). The following
> already volunteered:
>
>
>
> 1.       Ben Wilson – Digicert
>
> 2.       Rich Nordgren and Barrie Rody – representing Symantec
>
> 3.       Gerv Markham – Mozilla
>
> 4.       Mat Caughron – Apple
>
> 5.       Jody Cloutier – Microsoft
>
> 6.       Scott Peterson – representing Google
>
>
>
> According to the IPR Policy, section 7, the PAG volunteers will elect a
> chair. This will be done at the first meeting.
>
>
>
> PAG participants are limited to CA/B Forum Members. Are there any other
> members who would like to join the PAG? Please respond by July 17th.
>
>
>
> Once all the volunteers are made known, I will call an initial PAG
> teleconference.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dean Coclin
>
> CA/B Forum Chair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com <sleevi at google.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 3:32 PM
> *To:* CABFPub
> *Subject:* Request for the formation of a Patent Advisory Group
>
>
>
> As the Validation WG works to resolve the security issues of the Baseline
> Requirements’ “any other method” exception (v1.3.0, Section 3.2.2.4, item
> 7), we’ve been doing our legal review for any issues that might be raised
> by the draft proposals. As a result, we’d like to bring members’ attention
> to an IPR Policy interpretation issue that we have noted, and we would
> would like to request the convening of a PAG (as described by Sections 7.1
> and 7.2 of the IPR Policy).
>
> We propose a PAG, not to discuss a concern flowing from any particular
> patent, but to avoid possible patent-related misunderstanding. In
> particular, it could be useful to make sure that CAB Forum members share a
> common understanding of application of the IPR Policy to the kind of
> requirement that is expressed in Section 3.2.2.4 (a list of alternative
> methods for satisfying the specified requirement), and to make sure the
> Forum has the patent-related transparency that those who read a Forum
> document may have come to expect based on the Forum's royalty-free policy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150710/4af340e3/attachment.html