Oh, sorry, I noticed this from Ryans post.
Thanks, Peter, that was my fault.. I'll try to find the proper thread or leave
it until f2f.
Thanks,M.D.
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Peter Bowen <[email protected]>
Date: 5/5/2016 06:08 (GMT+02:00)
To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <[email protected]>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>, Dean Coclin <[email protected]>,
CABFPub <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
Moudrick,
I agree that we should try to give auditors clear standards that don’t result
in varying interpretations based on which auditor one chooses. I also agree
that there are sometimes variations required in specific jurisdictions,
especially when issuing a certificate designed for multiple purposes.
However that is not what is being discussed here. This is about the CA/Browser
Forum IPR Agreement which is something outside scope of any audit.
These are two different topics and need different handling.
Thanks,
Peter
> On May 4, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
> I understand what you are saying and actually suggesting how to support it.
> :-)
>
> I'm not sure if leaving potential controversies to resolve on case by case
> basis is the best we can do here. Again, this is not about IPR or any other
> specific aspect.
>
> By clarifying general interpretation of our own standards we'd help our
> auditors to properly manage various jurisdiction specific realities -
> exclusions. Take into account the fact that our standards are defacto
> becoming indirectly binding requirements.
>
> Even for eIDAS sending a carefully selected Forum's message (that doesn't
> cross the red line as you explained below) IMO would contribute to harmonized
> implementation of Forum's documents.
>
> Thanks,
> M.D.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>
> Date: 5/5/2016 02:18 (GMT+02:00)
> To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Dean Coclin <[email protected]>, CABFPub <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]> wrote:
> If not a legal opinion, maybe "common understanding" would still be useful.
> As a simple rule I'd suggest to respect any legally binding exclusions of a
> given jurisdiction (to apply to all CAs that do business in that
> jurisdiction). Does that make sense?
>
> Moudrick,
>
> I'm not sure who you suggest respects them. The Forum, as a non-legal entity,
> cannot declare these as valid or not, nor can Symantec challenge that ruling
> (because of the non-legal entity). What we have is a IPR policy that is an
> agreement made collectively between the members of the Forum. As such, it's
> the necessary role of each member to independently evaluate whether or not
> Symantec's exclusion was meeting the obligation of the agreement. If Symantec
> were to bring enforcement action on the basis that they believe their
> exclusions are valid and conforming with the policy, the question about
> whether that is legally accurate is, in effect, a contract dispute, and
> alternative legal interpretations may be met. One such interpretation is that
> it was not conforming, and as such, any such claim would, if essential, be
> subject to the Forum's IPR policy. Another interpretation is that it was
> conforming. How this matter gets settled is not something the Forum can
> declare, but rather one that would necessarily need to be adjudicated.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
