[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

Ryan, I suggest you start participating in the Validation Working Group.  We have already been discussing all the issues you discuss below – what it the best way to formulate domain validation methods – and it is not useful to switch the existing conversations back and forth between the VWG and the PAG.  To be frank, I don’t understand what you are saying below.  Are you proposing that we move the current ballot on updating domain validation methods from the VWG to the PAG?  If so, why?  The PAG’s purpose is to examine BRs and EVGLs that are fully formulated against disclosed patents.  How is a draft proposal that has not yet been approved relevant to the PAG?

Again, this conversation has been going on for six months in the VWG, so I suggest it return there, and I hope you will participate.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: pag at cabforum.org; validation at cabforum.org; CABFPub
Subject: RE: [cabfPAG] Function of the PAG


On Jul 28, 2015 7:47 PM, "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>" <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:
>
> In any case, the purpose of the PAG is to examine final ballot proposals and actual adopted BRs and EVGLs against patents which have been disclosed, so I think this discussion goes beyond the ambit of the PAG.
>

That's not true, and again, it is unfortunate you were unable to make the call, since we spent significant time discussing the purpose of the PAG. Please also read the bylaws you posted earlier, and my original request for a PAG. You can see section 7.1's final sentence - a disclosure is not required for the formation of a PAG, but can be formed to avoid issues. Further, as you examine the rest of Section 7, you can further see support for providing feedback on Drafts (not adopted or final proposals). You can further see my original request for the formation of a PAG, which is to provide clarity for our IPR policies, so that we can avoid potential issues - especially as the Validation WG iterates on drafts towards a final proposal.

Hopefully this clarifies some of what was discussed on the call, and what was previously echo'd on the lists.

<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/66066405/attachment.html