[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

[Dean Coclin]

Ben-I think it may be worthwhile to convene another session of the current PAG 
to come up with a recommendation on how to handle the discrepancies discussed. 
I don't think it benefits the forum or the public to have different 
interpretations of exclusion notice validities and hence I would recommend the 
PAG work on this as a final item.

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

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.

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/20160504/cd635ab8/attachment-0001.p7s>