[cabfpub] Informal discussion period - Ballot 206 and related documents

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Wed Mar 14 22:28:48 UTC 2018


Hi Dave,

Thanks very much for your questions - I appreciate that you’re looking at the documents so closely!

1.       What is the intent of “otherwise agreeing to the licensing terms described in the policy” in section 3.2? It seems only relevant if there are other licensing terms in the policy, but I don’t see any.

It looks like this question pertains to Section 3.2 of the IPR Policy.  The language you’ve referenced is there for situations where a participant would need to sign the IPR Agreement before joining a working group.  For example, we had some potential “Interested Parties” who wanted to attend the F2F meeting - they would have to sign the IPR agreement first, as it’s not clear if they’d be joining a WG.  The “licensing terms” are in Section 5 of the IPR Policy.

2.       In the definition of Participant can we change “may be” to “are”? i.e. “Participant” means a Member who is participating in one or more Working Groups of the CAB Forum, together with its Affiliates. Interested Parties and Associate Members may be  are considered “Participants” for purposes of Working Group participation, but they do not gain any CAB Forum membership privileges thereby.

	This is from Section 8.3.j of the IPR Policy.  The reason for the “may” here is that Interested Parties and Associated Members may not always qualify for participation in a WG.  If a WG requires technical experience related to security breaches on the Internet and disclosure of credit card information, Interested Parties/Associate Members may not have sufficient knowledge or experience to participate - so we wouldn’t want to say they “are” Participants of that working group.  They “may” be Participants in a WG that they qualify for.  Does that make sense? 


Best regards,

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






On Mar 14, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Blunt, Dave <dblunt at amazon.com> wrote:

I had a couple of comments about the ballot:
 
1.       What is the intent of “otherwise agreeing to the licensing terms described in the policy” in section 3.2? It seems only relevant if there are other licensing terms in the policy, but I don’t see any.
2.       In the definition of Participant can we change “may be” to “are”? i.e. “Participant” means a Member who is participating in one or more Working Groups of the CAB Forum, together with its Affiliates. Interested Parties and Associate Members may be  are considered “Participants” for purposes of Working Group participation, but they do not gain any CAB Forum membership privileges thereby.
 
 
Dave
 
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:42 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Informal discussion period - Ballot 206 and related documents
 
Hello all,
 
I understand that some of you may not have received the FAQ document with yesterday’s email, so I’m attaching it again here.  Please let me know if you’re having problems with any other documents.  Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180314/c556ad97/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list