Ben-I think it may be worthwhile to convene another session of the current PAG to come up with a recommendation on how to handle the discrepancies discussed. I don't think it benefits the forum or the public to have different interpretations of exclusion notice validities and hence I would recommend the PAG work on this as a final item.
Dean -----Original Message----- From: Gervase Markham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:51 PM To: Dean Coclin <[email protected]>; CABFPub <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices On 03/05/16 18:11, Dean Coclin wrote: > Gerv, > I think you make my point by using the word, "seems" in front of both > conclusions that you draw. Sorry, I was being British and understating. My point is that it doesn't seem that the rules were ambiguous. > Why force participants to draw inexact conclusions when we can easily > fix this with a ballot. If you want to fix this with a ballot, without saying I support such a move, the best ballot would be the most limited - the one which rules on precisely the two disclosures which are in question. > I'm actually surprised that our IPR policy, given past and numerous > discussions about making all things CA/B Forum public, only says that > the exclusion notice has to be provided to the Chair. Am I the only > one amazed by that? Am I misinterpreting something? It is a little surprising, but the CAB Forum has been on a journey towards greater transparency, and sometimes the consequences of rare things are missed. Gerv
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
