[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:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> 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/20160505/7b398e45/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list