[Servercert-wg] Discussion Period Begins - Ballot SC-067 V1: "Require domain validation and CAA checks to be performed from multiple Network Perspectives”

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

Hi Chris,

On 18/3/2024 5:32 μ.μ., Chris Clements via Servercert-wg wrote:
>
> Intellectual Property (IP) Disclosure:
>
>
> - While not a Server Certificate Working Group Member, researchers 
> from Princeton University presented at Face-to-Face 58, provided 
> academic expertise, and highlighted publicly-available peer-reviewed 
> research to support Members in drafting this ballot.
>
> - The Princeton University researchers indicate that they have not 
> filed for any patents relating to their MPIC work and do not plan to 
> do so in the future.
>
> - Princeton University has indicated that it is unable to agree to the 
> CA/Browser Forum IPR agreement because it could encumber inventions 
> invented by researchers not involved in the development of MPIC or 
> with the CA/B Forum.
>
> - Princeton University has instead provided the attached IPR 
> statement. Pursuant to the IPR statement, Princeton University has 
> granted a worldwide royalty free license to the intellectual property 
> in MPIC developed by the researchers and has made representations 
> regarding its lack of knowledge of any other Princeton intellectual 
> property needed to implement MPIC.
>
> - For clarity, Princeton University’s IPR statement is NOT intended to 
> replace the Forum’s IPR agreement or allow Princeton to participate in 
> the Forum in any capacity.
>
> - Members seeking legal advice regarding this ballot should consult 
> their own counsel.
>

This is the first time the Forum and a Chartered Working Group goes 
through a ballot with essential contributions coming from a non-Member. 
At the last F2F meeting, we discussed about possibly allowing fewer days 
for the IPR review in certain cases, and many Members felt that this 
would create problems because legal departments need time to review 
these documents. My interpretation is that Organizations that 
participate in the Forum are very sensitive when it comes to IP issues.

I would therefore suggest that the discussion period takes *at least 30 
days* (similar to the time it takes for the IPR review period to end for 
Maintenance Guidelines), so that Members have time to provide 
information to their legal departments regarding the commitment by 
Princeton from January 11, 2024, and see if there are any objections or 
concerns raised. All members will ultimately have to accept the proposed 
IPR solution offered by Princeton before the ballot enters its voting 
period. I hope this sounds reasonable and fair.

At the same time, we can continue discussing the proposed language that 
updates the BRs.

Other Members that are sensitive on this matter can also speak up about 
this suggested process so we can proceed with caution and minimize the 
IP risks.


Thank you,
Dimitris.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20240319/1c355649/attachment.html>