[cabfpub] [Cscwg-public] Let's Oppose

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 2020-06-12 8:44 μ.μ., Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> I believe you are bound by law to consider this as it involves 
> anticompetive conduct. You minimally have a duty to inform the membership.

This is a public list, which includes all Members by default, so by 
sending your email the Membership became informed :-)

The officer duties are described in our Bylaws. As much as I hate 
calling out these things, I must remind you that our Code of Conduct 
<https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.150.47/273.6a1.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-Bylaws-v2.3.pdf> 
specifically mentions about insulting remarks. I will not go into the 
essence of your message about "Let's Oppose" but you are making 
demeaning comments about a CA/B Forum Member and this is a behavior not 
in line with our CoC.


Thanks,
Dimitris.

>
> --Tony R
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of 
> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Cscwg-public 
> <cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2020 1:01:09 PM
> *To:* Tony Rutkowski <tony at yaana.com>; Ben Wilson 
> <bwilson at mozilla.com>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org 
> <cscwg-public at cabforum.org>; Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] Let's Oppose
>
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> Let's not.
>
> The CA/Browser Forum is not the proper venue to discuss such legal 
> debates. The Forums is more focused on discussing technical standards 
> and policy, not debates between legal entities.
>
>
> Thanks for understanding.
>
> Best regards,
> Dimitris Zacharopoulos
> CA/B Forum Chair
>
>
>
> On 2020-06-12 6:24 μ.μ., Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/10/lets_encrypt_trademark_complaints/
>>
>> This is preposterous and an abuse of the trademark and standards systems.
>>
>> If you use the US Patent and Trademark Office online system, you can 
>> see the full history.
>> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4810:tltw3o.1.1
>>
>> Click on Basic Word Mark Search and enter “Let’s Encrypt”
>>
>> This was originally Comodo’s mark filed on 16 Oct 2015 and abandoned 
>> 25 June 2016.  Thirteen days later, ISRG as a non-profit 501.c.3 
>> filed for the mark.
>>
>> A considerable number of entities have used the term in the 
>> marketplace for all kinds of purposes as a political movement.  
>> Google Search finds about 6,840,00 of them going back almost 20 years.
>>
>> It is found 447 times in the IETF alone for advancing all manner of 
>> activities without ever disclosing a trademark assertion.
>>
>> For the ISRG to threaten some other company for using the term “Let’s 
>> Encrypt” with the arguments at the end of The Register article is 
>> preposterous
>>
>> Lastly and most significantly, the actual Let’s Encrypt word mark – 
>> Serial Number 88828174 was just filed on 10 March 2020, asserting 
>> first use in commerce on 24 Feb 2020, and is just being published for 
>> Opposition on 7 July 2020.
>>
>> It is time to LET’S OPPOSE
>>
>> --tony
>>
>
>
> .....
> This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If 
> it appears that this message was sent to you by mistake, any 
> retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and 
> attachments is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender 
> immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments.
>
> . . . . . 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20200612/09dfe51d/attachment-0003.html>