[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

OK, well perhaps all this will become clearer when the PAG meeting Minutes are available.  Working Groups don't usually keep Minutes -- who is drafting these, and when will they be available?

Just to be clear, the original authorization for creation of a PAG was contained in the full Minutes of the last Forum meetings, July 9 and 23 (see excerpts below).  The PAG should follow the procedures set forth in the IPR agreement we all signed, and should not go off in a different direction.  The procedure to follow is laid out at some length in Sec. 4 and 7 of the attached policy, so that's the process we should follow.  I would point out that under Sec. 7.1, a PAG is only formed  "[i]n the event a patent has been disclosed that may contain an Essential Claim, but such Essential Claim is not available under CAB Forum RF Licensing ***."  Under Sec. 7.2, " A PAG may also be convened in the event Essential Claims are discovered after a Guideline is issued."  So it seems the first step is for someone to assert or identify an Essential Claim that the PAG needs to address -- otherwise, there is no basis for forming a PAG.  Is anyone asserting an Essential Claim that is in conflict with anything?  That's what we need to know first - until we have that, there's nothing for the PAG to work on.

Here are the excerpts from the Forum minutes

July 9 Minutes:

9.	Request to form PAG (Patent Advisory Group): Ryan Sleevi was unable to join. Dean gave a summary of the PAG per the IPR Policy (section 7) and referred to Ryan’s memo to the public list. He also called for volunteers and the following came forward: Mat-Apple, Gerv-Mozilla, Ben-Digicert, Dean-Symantec, Jody-Microsoft. It was assumed that someone from Google will also join but that is not confirmed. Dean will publish a request to the membership for other volunteers. The PAG will need to appoint a chair and convene a meeting. Dean will request that a new mailing list be created.

July 23 Minutes

8.	PAG formation: Dean reiterated the formation of the Patent Advisory Group, in accordance with the IPR policy. The first call will be on 7/24 and a chair will be elected. An email list has been created: pag at cabforum.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:58 PM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); Jeremy Rowley; Ryan Sleevi
Cc: pag at cabforum.org; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

On 29/07/15 21:16, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com wrote:
> Hmmm… the meaning of Essential Claims has already been defined as 
> shown below, and it was heavily negotiated by all the legal 
> departments of the browsers and CAs, and is part of the contract we 
> all signed.  It seems pretty clear to me.

Well, there are certainly at least two possible interpretations I could think of in a few seconds even on the call, and so perhaps everyone thinks it's clear, but not everyone agrees on what it clearly says? :-)

Still, this is what the PAG is doing - making sure we are all on the same page here.

Gerv

<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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IPR Policy v01 Final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 325003 bytes
Desc: IPR Policy v01 Final.pdf
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/6212285d/attachment-0001.pdf