[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu May 5 03:05:46 UTC 2016

On May 4, 2016 8:01 PM, "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md at ssc.lt> wrote:
> Ryan,
> I understand what you are saying and actually suggesting how to support
it. :-)
> I'm not sure if leaving potential controvercies to resolve on case by
case basis is the best we can do here. Again, this is not about IPR or any
other specific aspect.
> By clarifying general interpretation of our own standards we'd help our
auditors to properly manage various jurisdiction specific realities -
exclusions. Take into account the fact that our standards are defacto
becoming indirectly binding requirements.


This is not the same, which seems we may disagree. The IPR policy is a
contract between members. This is not a question of auditors.

I agree that providing guidance to auditors is useful, but you cannot
generalize that to providing guidance about the IPR policy after the fact.

> Even for eIDAS sending a carefully selected Forum's message (that doesn't
cross the red line as you explained below) IMO would contribute to
harmonized implementation of Forum's documents.

I have no idea what you're saying here, or how eIDAS has entered into a
conversation about the IPR.

This is not a matter of question of what browsers expect - this is a
complex legal topic as a contract between members. The two are as far as
you can imagine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160504/859c5e26/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list