[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

[Dean Coclin]

Gerv,
I think you make my point by using the word, "seems" in front of both 
conclusions that you draw. Why force participants to draw inexact conclusions 
when we can easily fix this with a ballot. Otherwise, you are left with 
forcing members to determine if the exclusion was valid or not when it should 
be clear and transparent.

I'm actually surprised that our IPR policy, given past and numerous 
discussions about making all things CA/B Forum public, only says that the 
exclusion notice has to be provided to the Chair. Am I the only one amazed by 
that? Am I misinterpreting something?

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 12:36 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5747 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160503/0df75f51/attachment-0001.p7s>