[cabfpub] Call for PAG members

[Carolyn Oldenburg]

Carolyn Oldenburg, GlobalSign, also volunteers.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Morton
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 8:51 AM
To: Dean Coclin; CABFPub (public at cabforum.org)
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Call for PAG members

Please add Bruce Morton from Entrust to the PAG.

Thanks, Bruce.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:21 PM
To: CABFPub (public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>)
Subject: [cabfpub] Call for PAG members

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]
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150710/29e0a38a/attachment-0003.html>