[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
sleevi at google.com
Sun May 8 20:05:29 UTC 2016
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
> As I stated earlier, I’m quite surprised by the delivery method specified
> in the policy, which is contrary to normal Forum publicity methods. Given
> Google’s publicized stance on forum transparency and active participation
> in the PAG, I’m at a loss to understand this.
I'm unsure what to make of your implication here regarding Google. Perhaps
you could be more forthcoming as to what you're at a loss to understand?
Do we believe this is good? No. But that isn't what is being discussed here
- the question is whether, under the existing bylaws, were they followed?
That's a more difficult matter which will ultimately have to rely on
discovery, it seems, given the conflicting remarks made regarding this
issue. Our objection, hopefully clear, is that if Symantec's disclosure was
on April 21, as you presented it publicly, then it does not represent a
disclosure complying with our bylaws. It's clearly necessary to make this
unambiguous, lest precedent be set - as we can already see the trouble
where the Chair's failure to follow the bylaws has ended up with conflicts
later on, specifically, the Code Signing WG.
If your remarks are meant to suggest you're not sure why Google did not use
the PAG to fix this matter, well, that's because that is not what the scope
of the PAG was convened to set out to fix. There were a wide range of
issues highlighted in our IPR policy that deserve resolution - Kirk Hall
has maintained a rather comprehensive list of them - but the PAG set out to
resolve the most pressing matter, of 220.127.116.11. It should come as no surprise
that we're quite fond of accomplishing narrowly-scoped work in a reasonable
timeframe - as shown by the PAG's success in being able to resolve the
ambiguities highlighted in time for the Validation WG's proposal, and by
our repeated remarks to decouple ballots into specific resolution items -
rather than trying to solve every issue at once, especially the
Does this serve as an excellent example of a potentially problematic
requirement of the Bylaws? Absolutely. But let's try to focus on the narrow
issue at hand, specific to Symantec's disclosure, rather than imply there's
some hidden agenda supporting it; there isn't, but it is the Bylaw we have,
and if we're going to change the Bylaws, it needs to be by ballot, not by
fiat or "common agreement" - particularly not agreement made in person or
on a phone call.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public