[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

[Gervase Markham]

On 03/05/16 16:50, Dean Coclin wrote:
> As discussed on last week's call, there appears to have been some ambiguity
> in the instructions to organizations that wanted to provide an exclusion
> notice in accordance with the latest IPR policy. The ballot stated that this
> had to be done within 60 days in accordance with the policy but the policy
> said that notice had to be provided to the CA/B Forum chair and not to the
> public list or anywhere else as we've done in the past.

That doesn't seem very ambiguous. It may not be transparent, but it's
not ambiguous.

> For example, it was
> mentioned that one company posted their exclusion notice to the wiki but did
> not notify the Chair. Is this acceptable?

Notification was not provided to the chair, as requested, so that seems
not acceptable.

> Another organization notified the
> chair by the deadline (the chair did not post it until after the deadline).

Notification was provided to the chair, as requested, so that seems
acceptable.

> And we never sent a formal reminder out prior to the deadline. 

Perhaps unfortunate, but again, not ambiguous. Isn't the reason we all
have highly paid lawyers is that they get to keep track of these things
and make sure the correct and complete legal notices get filed in the
correct places by the relevant deadlines?

Gerv