[cabfpub] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal
sleevi at google.com
Wed Jul 29 14:39:34 MST 2015
Somehow the public list got dropped.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:13 PM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <
> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:
>> OK, well perhaps all this will become clearer when the PAG meeting
>> Minutes are available. Working Groups don't usually keep Minutes -- who is
>> drafting these, and when will they be available?
>> Just to be clear, the original authorization for creation of a PAG was
>> contained in the full Minutes of the last Forum meetings, July 9 and 23
>> (see excerpts below). The PAG should follow the procedures set forth in
>> the IPR agreement we all signed, and should not go off in a different
>> direction. The procedure to follow is laid out at some length in Sec. 4
>> and 7 of the attached policy, so that's the process we should follow. I
>> would point out that under Sec. 7.1, a PAG is only formed "[i]n the event
>> a patent has been disclosed that may contain an Essential Claim, but such
>> Essential Claim is not available under CAB Forum RF Licensing ***." Under
>> Sec. 7.2, " A PAG may also be convened in the event Essential Claims are
>> discovered after a Guideline is issued." So it seems the first step is for
>> someone to assert or identify an Essential Claim that the PAG needs to
>> address -- otherwise, there is no basis for forming a PAG. Is anyone
>> asserting an Essential Claim that is in conflict with anything? That's
>> what we need to know first - until we have that, there's nothing for the
>> PAG to work on.
> This is factually not correct.
> Again, please review Section 7.1 in complete.
> In the event a patent has been disclosed that may contain an Essential
> Claim, but such Essential Claim is not available under CAB Forum RF
> Licensing, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the
> conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted specifically in relation
> to the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline containing the
> conflict. A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could
> help avoid anticipated patent problems.
> Please review that last sentence, which I've quoted for you before, but
> emphasis below:
> __ A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could help
> avoid anticipated patent problems.__
> I don't know how much clearer this can be that your objections are
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public