[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

[Dean Coclin]

All I’m suggesting is that the PAG make a recommendation as to whether or not a ballot to extend the deadline and clarify the submission procedure is in order. 

 

The PAG could come back and say:

(a) Nope, everything is fine the way it is, no ballot is recommended or

(b) Propose a ballot to extend the deadline and specify that the exclusion notices be posted publicly

 

The PAG is made up of attorneys from both our companies as well as several others and I think would be in the best position to decide which way to go.

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:42 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

 

Dean,

Based on the advice we've received, I don't believe that would be useful. The matter is unlikely to be able to be settled by the Forum - in the event of lawsuit, it will have to be resolved by adjudication. While individual members and their counsel may have differing opinions as to the appropriateness of the exclusions, the Forum itself cannot offer a legal opinion. The possibilities would be to update the Bylaws or propose a new ballot, and that's a significant enough activity that it would likely require a separate exploration.

On May 4, 2016 9:55 AM, "Dean Coclin" <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> > wrote:

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 <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org> ]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> >; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto: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


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160504/4f032335/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- 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/20160504/4f032335/attachment-0001.p7s>