[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: cabfpub] Bylaws: Add Forum Subcommittees
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
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.
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>>
> 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.
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public