[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: cabfpub] Bylaws: Add Forum Subcommittees

Sun Feb 10 09:56:23 UTC 2019

I think Wayne's last phrase maintains a certain balance that covers most 
of the concerns raised from all sides. I propose we move forward with 
that and see how it will work out. In case we find ourselves in a 
situation where we can't discuss or propose new ideas due to possible 
IPR alarms raised by members, we can revisit this language.

Thanks,
Dimitris.

On 9/2/2019 3:12 π.μ., Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
>
> I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not sure there will always be 
> agreement on how to interpret the phrase “the Forum shall not engage 
> in activities that carry a significant risk of introducing encumbered 
> intellectual property”.  Clearly working on the development or 
> amendment of Guidelines should be blocked.  Can you give examples of 
> “activities that carry a significant risk of introducing encumbered 
> intellectual property” that don’t involve Guidelines?  I can’t think 
> if any – the IRPA only addresses Guidelines.
>
> I would hate to adopt a phrase like that if it resulted in fights on 
> what non-Guidelines topics could be discussed at the Forum level.
>
> *From:*Wayne Thayer [mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:40 PM
> *To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: cabfpub] Bylaws: Add Forum Subcommittees
>
> *WARNING:* This email originated outside of Entrust Datacard.
> *DO NOT CLICK* links or attachments unless you trust the sender and 
> know the content is safe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Kirk - I agree with your arguments that my proposed language is too 
> broad but I also think that yours is a bit too narrow. How about:
>
> “Due to the lack of IPR protection, Subcommittees of the Forum shall 
> not engage in activities that carry a significant risk of introducing 
> encumbered intellectual property, such as the development or amendment 
> of Guidelines.”
>
> - Wayne
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:25 AM Kirk Hall 
> <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Wayne – as I said on the call, I think the restriction should be
>     narrower.  Something like “In order to avoid coming within the
>     scope of the IPR Agreement , the Forum and its Subcommittees shall
>     not engage in the development or amendment of Guidelines.”
>
>     The draft language you have below is almost impossible to apply –
>     “any activity that could result in a claim infringement of a
>     Member's Intellectual Property”.  If we discuss a draft Charter at
>     the Forum level for creation of a new Anti-Gravity Certificate
>     Working Group and we want to fine-tune the WG’s scope, we will
>     certainly be discussing technical issues.  How can we possibly
>     know whether or not our discussion “could result in a claim
>     infringement of a Member's Intellectual Property”? I have no idea
>     what Intellectual Property the other Members have.
>
>     As another example, the Infrastructure WG may forward a proposal
>     to the Forum for how we do our wiki, emails, etc., and ask for
>     comments.  I’m sure that several Members have IP relating to
>     wikis, servers, email systems, etc.  If we discuss the WG proposal
>     at the Forum level, would that be an “activity that could result
>     in a claim infringement of a Member's Intellectual Property”?  No,
>     because the Forum will not be drafting Guidelines, and is not a WG.
>
>     We need to keep focused on the language of the IPRA and what it
>     covers – which is only development of Guidelines at the WG level. 
>     So long as the Forum (and its subcommittees) stays away from that,
>     we should be good.
>
>     *From:*Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
>     <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer
>     via Public
>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2019 9:38 AM
>     *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org
>     <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
>     *Subject:* [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Bylaws: Add Forum Subcommittees
>
>     On today's call, we discussed the addition of the following
>     section to the Bylaws:
>
>         5.6    Subcommittees
>         The Forum may establish subcommittees of the Forum by ballot
>         to address any of the Forum’s business as specified in the
>         ballot. Subcommittees are open to all Forum Members. A Forum
>         Subcommittee may work on and recommend Forum ballots, complete
>         delegated Forum functions, or issue reports to the Forum that
>         are within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Subcommittees must
>         post all agendas and minutes on a public mail list.
>
>     Ryan proposed the addition of explicit language regarding IPR.
>     Something like:
>
>     Subcommittees of the Forum shall not engage in any activity that
>     could result in a claim infringement of a Member's Intellectual
>     Property. Such activities include the discussion or creation of
>     Guidelines or similar standards-setting documents.
>
>     Comments?
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Wayne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20190210/5b36d315/attachment-0003.html>