[cabfpub] Ballot 183

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Wed Jan 11 18:25:18 MST 2017


Hello all,

Just wanted to give you all a status report on the updated Ballot 183.  I’m working on updating the document and getting feedback from Chris @ Amazon before circulating the draft.  I’m hoping I can send it out tomorrow.  Thanks for your patience.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com






On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:46 PM, public-request at cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
	public at cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	public-request at cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	public-owner at cabforum.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Ballot 183 - PAG process (Virginia Fournier)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:46:36 -0800
From: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 183 - PAG process
Message-ID: <EA5E53E1-46B4-46CD-9C29-4A8BA0236619 at apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

As a follow-up, I discovered that there is a W3C process document for PAGs.  You can find it here:  https://www.w3.org/2007/04/patent-exception-management

This might be a good starting point for the Forum?s PAG process.  Please note that the W3C process is working group-based, so it would make sense to incorporate this process into the Bylaws at the same time we modify the Bylaws to accommodate the WG model the Governance WG has been discussing.

A couple of notes:

Apparently, all the W3C PAG info is all public.
A charter is created to outline the PAG?s work.
W3C PAGs are launched much sooner than the timeline indicates - generally well within 30 days.
The process states that a spec will not make it past Candidate Recommendation (the final draft before final publication) without a satisfactory outcome from a PAG.  So, contrary to what we discussed earlier today, the W3C PAG can serve as a gatekeeper/blocker for specs with unresolved IP issues.
The W3C process indicates that the actual process will depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular situation.  So there isn?t a one-size-fits-all process.  

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
? Apple Inc.
? 669-227-9595
?? vmf at apple.com






On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Per our discussion this morning, here is the full text of the W3C Patent Policy section about the PAG.  I talked to Marc Braner (one of the original drafters of the Forum IPR Policy) about the differences, and he said that they watered down the W3C provisions to have more of a lightweight process.  It looks like the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction.

From the W3C Patent Policy (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception)
7. Exception Handling <>
7.1. PAG Formation <>
In the event a patent has been disclosed that may be essential, but is not available under W3C RF licensing requirements <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-RF>, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted specifically in relation to the Working Group with the conflict. A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could help avoid anticipated patent problems. During the time that the PAG is operating, the Working Group may continue its technical work within the bounds of its charter.

7.2. PAG Formation After a Recommendation Is Issued <>
A PAG may also be convened in the event Essential Claims are discovered after a Recommendation is issued. In this case the PAG will be open to any interested Member, though the PAG may choose to meet without the holder of the Essential Claims in question.

7.3. PAG Composition <>
The PAG is composed of:

Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate designated by the AC Rep)
Working Group Team Contact
W3C counsel
Working Group Chair, ex officio
Domain Leader responsible for the Working Group
Others suggested by the Working Group Chair and/or the Team with the approval of the Director
W3C Member participants in the PAG should be authorized to represent their organization's views on patent licensing issues. Any participant in the PAG may also be represented by legal counsel, though this is not required. Invited experts are not entitled to participate in the PAG, though the PAG may chose to invite any qualified experts who would be able to assist the PAG in its determinations.

W3C expects to provide qualified legal staffing to all PAGs in the form of a Team member who develops experience with the PAG process and patent issues at W3C. Legal staff to the PAG will represent the interests of the Consortium as a whole.

7.4. PAG Procedures <>
7.4.1. PAG Formation Timing <>
The PAG will be convened by the Working Group Team Contact, based on a charter developed initially by the Team. The timing for convening the PAG is at the discretion of the Director, based on consultation with the Chair of the Working Group. In some cases, convening a PAG before a specific patent disclosure is made may be useful. In other cases, it may be that the PAG can better resolve the licensing problems when the specification is at the Last Call or Candidate Recommendation maturity level.

7.4.2. PAG Charter Requirements <>
The charter should include:

clear goals for the PAG, especially a statement of the question(s) the PAG is to answer.
duration.
confidentiality status, which must follow the underlying Working Group (Member only, public, etc.).
The PAG charter must specify deadlines for completion of individual work items it takes on. The PAG, once convened, may propose changes to its charter as appropriate, to be accepted based on consensus of the PAG participants. The Team will choose a member of the PAG to serve as Chair. A single PAG may exist for the duration of the Working Group with which it is associated if needed.

In order to obtain input from the interested public at large, as soon as the PAG is convened, the PAG charter will be made public, along with all of the patent disclosure and licensing statements applicable to the Working Group in question.

7.5. PAG Conclusion <>
7.5.1. Possible PAG Conclusions <>
After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude:

The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the Working Group to continue.
The Working Group should be instructed to consider designing around the identified claims.
The Team should seek further information and evaluation, including and not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under which W3C RF licensing requirements may be met.
The Working Group should be terminated.
The Recommendation (if it has already been issued) should be rescinded.
Alternative licensing terms should be considered. The procedure in section 7.5.3 must be followed.
7.5.2. PAG Outcome <>
Outcomes 4, 5 or 6 require an Advisory Committee review and Director's decision. In any case, the PAG must state its Proposal and reasons in a public W3C document.

7.5.3. Procedure for Considering Alternate Licensing Terms <>
After having made every effort to resolve the conflict through options 1, 2, and 3 under 7.5.1, the PAG, by consensus <https://www.w3.org/2003/12/Process-20031224/policies.html#Consensus> [PROCESS <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#ref-PROCESS>, section 3.3], may propose that specifically identified patented technology be included in the Recommendation even though such claims are not available according to the W3C RF licensing requirements of this policy. The PAG Proposal must explain:

why the chartered goals of the Working Group cannot be met without inclusion of the identified technology;
how the proposed licensing terms will be consistent with widespread adoption.
The PAG Proposal must include:

a complete list of claims and licensing terms of the proposed alternative arrangements; and,
a proposed charter for the Working Group, unless the Recommendation has been issued and no new work is required.
If the Director determines that the PAG Proposal is the best alternative consistent with the W3C mission, the interests of the Web community, and is clearly justified despite the expressed preference of the W3C Membership for RF licensing, then the Proposal shall be circulated for public comment and Advisory Committee review. The Director may also circulate the Proposal for Advisory Committee review without such endorsement. Should the PAG Proposal be rejected, then either sub-paragraph 4 or 5 of section 7.5.3 will apply as appropriate, without further action of the Advisory Committee. Members of the Working Group who are bound to RF terms are not released from their obligations by virtue of the PAG Proposal alone. As with any newly chartered Working Group, new commitments must be made, along with possible exclusions. In order to expedite the process, the PAG Proposal should consider whether additional claims would be excluded under the new charter and include such informatio
n in the PAG Proposal.



Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
? Apple Inc.
? 669-227-9595
?? vmf at apple.com






On Jan 10, 2017, at 4:14 AM, public-request at cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
	public at cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	public-request at cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	public-owner at cabforum.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process) (Gervase Markham)
2. Re: Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process) (Gervase Markham)
3. Re: Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process) (Gervase Markham)
4. Re: New gTLDs (Gervase Markham)
5. Re: CA/Browser Forum mailing list clarification (Gervase Markham)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:42:48 +0000
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>,	"'management at cabforum.org'
	(management at cabforum.org)"	<management at cabforum.org>, Virginia
	Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)
Message-ID: <6f74da7b-788f-36b6-c8a9-a6e4b780665c at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 09/01/17 20:23, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> 2.3(c) - What occurs, if anything, if two Ballots propose modifications
> to the same text at the same time? 

I think this is the correct solution:

>   c.2) Should we require that the 'more recently proposed' ballot
> include provisions about any existing ballots?

Whether two ballots clash is not necessarily something which can be
determined "programmatically" - it requires humans.

> 1) Assume the Chair is on vacation again. For purposes of IP Review,
> does the Period begin on that second business day, or does it begin when
> the chair returns?

Perhaps we need a general provision in the Bylaws that the Chair may
delegate such functions to the Vice-Chair if they are going to be absent
at the critical moment. And/or, we could slacken off the deadlines here;
one/two business days seems very quick indeed as a maximum bound. An
efficient chair would normally meet such a bound, but there seems little
need to specify it as the max. in all circumstances.

> 2.3(k) - For avoiding any ambiguity, historically the interpretation was
> that a Ballot is "in force" when a new versions of the Guideline are
> made public on the website. Do you believe this section supports that
> interpretation?

We do need to remember that the Forum's guidelines are "binding" via
root programs. So it's not entirely clear what it means for a new set of
Guidelines to be "in force". However, I agree the public publication of
the new version is the milestone we should use if we want to have the
concept, because the guidelines are applied (via root programs) to CAs
who are not members of the Forum.

> 2.3(l)(ii) - How is it determined that the PAG has provided a
> recommendation? Is it through action of the Chair? Through a formal
> Ballot of consensus?

I agree we need to define better procedures for the PAG on this, and I
would propose the PAG has to pass a section-2.2 vote giving a resolution
(one of the six allowed) and supporting data, perhaps in the form of a
report. Perhaps we can also put a six-month time limit on PAGs, after
which they are deemed to have recommended "do not proceed" and the
second vote is held (if the proposer and seconders still want it)?

Gerv


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:42:58 +0000
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>, Virginia Fournier
	<vfournier at apple.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)
Message-ID: <da2ed94a-8233-3b23-3ebe-d502b5bd60bb at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 09/01/17 20:23, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
> 2.3(c) - What occurs, if anything, if two Ballots propose modifications
> to the same text at the same time? 

I think this is the correct solution:

>   c.2) Should we require that the 'more recently proposed' ballot
> include provisions about any existing ballots?

Whether two ballots clash is not necessarily something which can be
determined "programmatically" - it requires humans.

> 1) Assume the Chair is on vacation again. For purposes of IP Review,
> does the Period begin on that second business day, or does it begin when
> the chair returns?

Perhaps we need a general provision in the Bylaws that the Chair may
delegate such functions to the Vice-Chair if they are going to be absent
at the critical moment. And/or, we could slacken off the deadlines here;
one/two business days seems very quick indeed as a maximum bound. An
efficient chair would normally meet such a bound, but there seems little
need to specify it as the max. in all circumstances.

> 2.3(k) - For avoiding any ambiguity, historically the interpretation was
> that a Ballot is "in force" when a new versions of the Guideline are
> made public on the website. Do you believe this section supports that
> interpretation?

We do need to remember that the Forum's guidelines are "binding" via
root programs. So it's not entirely clear what it means for a new set of
Guidelines to be "in force". However, I agree the public publication of
the new version is the milestone we should use if we want to have the
concept, because the guidelines are applied (via root programs) to CAs
who are not members of the Forum.

> 2.3(l)(ii) - How is it determined that the PAG has provided a
> recommendation? Is it through action of the Chair? Through a formal
> Ballot of consensus?

I agree we need to define better procedures for the PAG on this, and I
would propose the PAG has to pass a section-2.2 vote giving a resolution
(one of the six allowed) and supporting data, perhaps in the form of a
report. Perhaps we can also put a six-month time limit on PAGs, after
which they are deemed to have recommended "do not proceed" and the
second vote is held (if the proposer and seconders still want it)?

Gerv


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:43:48 +0000
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>,
	"'management at cabforum.org' (management at cabforum.org)"
	<management at cabforum.org>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)
Message-ID: <081e254e-e69a-a601-dbdf-d7d4b41a9cba at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi Virginia and all,

Thank you so much for your hard work on this. The diagram is excellent -
please don't apologise that it wasn't made in software! It really helps
bring clarity. And the process you have outlined seems the right one in
principle, so I am confident we can work out the textual details in
fairly short order.

However, "fairly short order" may not mean "immediately"; I think we
should not be considering moving this ballot to a vote until discussion
has died down a little bit. That may only be a few days, and I hope it
won't be a long time, but I think participants should have the space to
discuss scenarios and do their analysis without feeling under a
deadline. After all, we don't want to be back here again any time soon,
so it's vital to get this as right as we can.

On 09/01/17 18:44, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> Please see my responses to your comments below.  I?ve also attached an
> updated draft with redlines to show changes from the last draft.  The
> diagram is also included for those who may not have seen it.

1) One thing which surprises me is that the ballot contains no edits at
all to the text of the Bylaws outside the new section 2.3. Are there
really no other parts which need removing, updating or clarifying in
order to fix any of the issues which have been raised? As a simple
example, the new 2.3 says "This section applies to any ballot that
proposes a Final Guideline or a Final Maintenance Guideline". However,
2.2 says "Ballots will be conducted in accordance with the following
rules." That could lead to an interpretation that if the ballot proposes
an FG or FMG, both sections apply. It might make sense to update the
opening sentence of 2.2 to make it clear that it only applies to other
votes. In fact, it might make sense to have the FG/FMG section before
the section on other votes.

2) A common principle in computer science is DRY - Don't Repeat
Yourself. Having something in one canonical place reduces errors when
making updates. It is wise for us to repeat lots of common text? Or
would it be better to have one section for common rules, and then two
other sections for rules specific to each type of ballot? That way, the
common stuff is only in one place, following DRY.

One already-existing example of this problem is that 2.2 calls the
pre-voting period a "review period", and 2.3 calls it a "discussion
period". The "review period" language has an unfortunate name clash with
the IPR review period. We could fix this, but perhaps it demonstrates
that having two sections saying nearly the same thing is an unwise idea?

3) Section g) talks about two categories, "CAs" and "product suppliers",
but then later in the para talks about the "browser" category. The
category should have a consistent name. This error is also in the
existing section 2.2. Because we are repeating ourselves, we now have to
fix the problem in both places, or leave sub-optimal text in the
newly-added text.

4) At the moment, if the PAG recommends not proceeding, and the proposer
and endorsers wish to proceed anyway, they must nevertheless start the
process again. It seems to me that in a Patent Advisory Group, the clue
is in the name - it's Advisory to the membership, not binding.
Therefore, I think the decision to proceed with the ballot should be
that of the proposer and endorsers alone, and everyone else can vote
taking into account the PAG recommendation that will be available to
them. So I suggest removing the new section l) iii).

Reading the emails, I believe I am disagreeing with Kirk on this point :-)

5) How is it decided, and who decides, whether "material" changes have
been made to the ballot? Would it be easier to say "no changes"? If a
ballot has (non-material) drafting errors, the period of time between an
Initial Vote and a Second Vote is not the time to be fixing it.

6) d) says the discussion period is "at least seven days", but e) calls
it "the seven-day discussion period". Historically, the length of the
discussion period has been set by the drafters of the motion, although
it is normally seven days. I suggest removing the words "seven-day" in
e), and letting the definition in d) stand.

Gerv



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:07:09 +0000
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] New gTLDs
Message-ID: <96d1226f-e267-6a5a-2f4b-374907253136 at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 09/01/17 21:33, Bruce Morton via Public wrote:
> Would be great if an ICANN representative could confirm or clarify
> Peter?s statement below. From my review of the ICANN site, there is more
> information about Specification 13, then Specification 9. For instance
> see,
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting#spec13

The v2 of the newGTLDs.csv file contained a flag for spec13 but not
spec9. It seems odd that we would have all the discussions about this
and no-one from ICANN said "wait a second, you are looking in the wrong
place...".

Gerv


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:14:18 +0000
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CA/Browser Forum mailing list clarification
Message-ID: <bf29f083-770b-7bf2-5c73-732ec7118a07 at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 09/01/17 07:25, Peter Bowen via Public wrote:
> We have three Forum mailing lists.  They are described below.  I think
> (but am not sure) that all Forum members are automatically subscribed to
> all three of these lists.

Not so. Certainly, questions at cabforum.org is a self-selected subset. (I,
for example, am not on that list.) I'm not sure whether it's required
for people to be on the other two lists (how could that be enforced?),
but it's highly advisable.

> Member Mail List
> Email address: management at cabfourm.org <mailto:management at cabfourm.org>

Nit: typo

> Who can post messages to the list? Any member or associate member
> Who receives messages posted to the list? All 

...subscribed...

> members and associate
> members; no one else
> Who can read the archives? All members and associate members; no one else

Not sure what the URL is, though...

> Who can get a list of subscribers? Any member or associate member; no
> one else
> 
> Public Mail List
> Email address: public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
> Who can post messages to the list? Any member, associate member, or
> interested party
> Who receives messages posted to the list? Anyone subscribed (which
> includes all members and associate members)
> - Anyone can subscribe, regardless of their Forum status
> Who can read the archives? Anyone, including web crawler bots

Here: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/

> Who can get a list of subscribers? TBD (Only 

https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public says:

"(The subscribers list is only available to the list administrator.)"

> Questions Mail List
> Email address: questions at cabforum.org <mailto:questions at cabforum.org>
> Who can post messages to the list? Anyone
> Who receives messages posted to the list? All 

...subscribed...

> members and associate
> members; no one else
> Who can read the archives? All members and associate members; no one else
> Who can get a list of subscribers? Any member or associate member; no
> one else

These two functions may be available to subscribers only; I'm not sure.

> Note that there is no list that allows anyone to post and anyone to
> receive the messages/see the archive.

That is correct.

Gerv


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


------------------------------

End of Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 102
***************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170110/1f50121e/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


------------------------------

End of Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 107
***************************************



More information about the Public mailing list