[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Tue May 3 17:51:21 UTC 2016

On 03/05/16 18:11, Dean Coclin wrote:
> Gerv,
> I think you make my point by using the word, "seems" in front of both 
> conclusions that you draw.

Sorry, I was being British and understating. My point is that it doesn't
seem that the rules were ambiguous.

> Why force participants to draw inexact conclusions 
> when we can easily fix this with a ballot.

If you want to fix this with a ballot, without saying I support such a
move, the best ballot would be the most limited - the one which rules on
precisely the two disclosures which are in question.

> 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?

It is a little surprising, but the CAB Forum has been on a journey
towards greater transparency, and sometimes the consequences of rare
things are missed.


More information about the Public mailing list