[cabfpub] Creation of new IPR Policy Task Force / first meeting Nov. 29

[Ryan Sleevi]

Kirk,

I hate to be a pedant on process, but I'm curious how this fits with our
workmode on process and our bylaws. In particular, we have a PAG and we
have Working Groups. Section 5.3 defines how Working Groups are convened:

Members may propose by ballot the appointment of Working Groups open to
participation by Members and Interested Parties. The ballot shall outline
the scope of the Working Group’s activities, including deliverables, any
limitations, and Working Group expiration date.

Alternatively, a PAG may be convened as per the IPR Policy. Section 7.1
notes "A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could
help avoid anticipated patent problems. " If a PAG is being convened, "The
PAG will be convened by a Chair who shall be elected by the PAG and who
must not be affiliated with the company owning the Essential Claim that is
the subject of the PAG"

Given all of the situation with following the bylaws, I do hope you
appreciate the significance and seriousness of it. The precedent here - of
creating Task Forces to deal with issues - calls into serious questions
about the ability of the Forum to ensure IP is appropriately protected. For
example, I would hope that before a single meeting is held, it be clarified
how this Task Force fits within the obligations of the Bylaws and the IPR
Policy. For example, Working Groups must have minutes. Members' activities
are formally Contributions. These are important protections that would
appear entirely unresolved.

I would like to specifically ask that you either put forward a Ballot to
convene a Working Group - with defined deliverables - or state
unambiguously that this is a PAG - in which case, the chair(s) must be
elected by the PAG. However, neither of these workmodes, as defined in our
Bylaws and IPR policy, are compatible with what you've proposed here. As
we've seen, when work goes on without a charter and ballot - such as the
Code Signing WG - this creates significant issues for the members,
particularly around IP, so I do hope you will treat this with the utmost
care.




On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
wrote:

> We have had good discussions of outstanding IPR Policy issues on our CABF
> teleconferences, but it has taken a lot of time, and as a result we have
> not been able to discuss other issues.
>
>
>
> On our most recent call on Nov. 10, Dean Coclin suggested we create an IPR
> Policy Committee (I’d rather call it a Task Force) to consider possible
> clarifications and/or revisions to our current IPR Policy and/or Bylaws,
> and others agreed.
>
>
>
> I will shortly send a meeting invitation to the entire members list
> setting a time for this new IPR Policy Task Force.  Following discussion
> with Ben and Dean, it appears the best time to schedule this call is at the
> same time as the current Governance Change Working Group (Tuesdays at 9:00
> am Pacific,12:00 Eastern, 5:00 pm London), but on *opposite* weeks.  That
> means the first call of the IPR Policy Task Force will be on *November 29*,
> and will recur every two weeks after that.
>
>
>
> I’d like to ask Ben Wilson and Virginia Fournier to be the initial
> co-chairs for the first meeting, and to develop a meeting agenda with
> options for consideration.  The Task Force can choose other co-chairs at
> the first meeting if desired.  If you have suggestions for the first
> agenda, please email Ben and Virginia.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161115/9229fe55/attachment-0003.html>