[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
Moudrick M. Dadashov
md at ssc.lt
Wed May 4 23:09:00 UTC 2016
If not a legal opinion, maybe "common understanding" would still be useful.
As a simple rule I'd suggest to respect any legally binding exclusions
of a given jurisdiction (to apply to all CAs that do business in that
jurisdiction). Does that make sense?
On 5/4/2016 8:42 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> 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.
> -----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
> > 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
> > 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
> 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
> > 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
> greater transparency, and sometimes the consequences of rare
> things are
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public