[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Mon Jan 22 19:37:51 UTC 2018

We can add the subcommittee language to the Bylaws for clarity - that is not a problem.  As the Governance WG was drafting the documents, we didn’t think subcommittees would be needed with the new multi-WG structure - but if they are needed we can restore the language. 

How do you want to be able to introduce one WGs work product to another WG?  One of the principle goals of this new model was to keep IPR commitments within the WG that a member is participating in.  Are you now saying that you want IPR commitments to apply across all WGs so you can share all work across all WGs?  That would essentially be the IP model the Forum has now, where members have IP commitments across the entire Forum.  

I’m surprised these concerns are coming up now, even though we’ve been discussing these documents for over a year. I wonder if perhaps we’re not all converged on the same model?

Best regards,

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

On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> wrote:

> Yes. We definitely don't want multiple WGs covering server certificates.
> The existing WGs in that category need to either go away, or become
> subcommittees of the Server Certificate WG.

The problem is this isn't entirely true.

The Validation LWG probably should be a subcommittee of the Server
Certificate WG.  Can it be less formal than it is today (e.g. no charter)?  
Perhaps.  Probably the same for the Policy LWG.

OTOH, the Network Security LWG is addressing issues that are more
likely to apply across multiple different WGs, since they are generic
issues about how to securely run a certificate authority.  Whether the
certificates are for Web PKI or Email or Code Signing doesn't really

We have also discussed at previous F2Fs a "Baseline Baseline" WG 
that would handle things like EKUs and general compliance issues with 
RFC 5280.  Those would also apply to multiple working groups.

I was originally of the opinion that we could probably work that all
out after governance reform, but now I'm very concerned about
Wayne's concern that such generally applicable working groups
might have trouble introducing their work product into other WGs
due to IPR issues.

That would be a very unfortunate result of the governance reform
effort if it turned out to be true.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180122/4d7915aa/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list