[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
ben.wilson at digicert.com
Mon May 9 14:55:24 UTC 2016
This might be moot due to the fact that the Symantec exclusion notice covered the same patents as its previously filed exclusion notice from severs years ago.
From: Ryan Sleevi<mailto:sleevi at google.com>
Sent: 5/8/2016 2:06 PM
To: Dean Coclin<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: CABFPub<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>> wrote:
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 188.8.131.52. 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 controversial ones.
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