<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">There were a lot of good ideas at the Bilbao F2F meeting on next steps for the Governance Working Group – but I think there might be one issue that should be discussed early.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Toward the end of the governance discussion, Ryan said that one reason Google voted against the Code Signing ballot was because of our current IPR which applies whether a CABF Member participates on an issue or not. If I understood correctly,
Google might have abstained on the ballot if we had an IPR that only requires disclosure of IP if a member actually participates in a guideline, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some of the Governance Working Group proposals to spin off sub-groups (like Code Signing, Document Signing, etc.) were proposed to allow each subgroup to adopt its own IPR, etc. – but any final product will have to come back to the Forum
for a ballot and adoption (unless we let Working Groups adopt their own guidelines, without final Forum action).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we modify the Forum’s IPR so it becomes “participation only”, I wonder if that will greatly simplify the rest of the work of this committee. Maybe the spinoffs, separate IPR policies, etc. won’t be necessary. Remember, we already allow
non-CAs and non-browsers to fully participate in Working Groups, so we are already allowing greater involvement at the Working Group level.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Should we take another look at the Forum’s IPR as part of the governance discussion?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>