Hi Ryan and all, Here are my thoughts on your questions below. These are my personal views, and not a corporate position. As we’ve discussed for a few months, the current process is not perfect, and we need to limp along with it until we can pass the updated process ballot. I’m hoping that we can count on everyone’s participation in this endeavor, so that we can move beyond quibbling over ballots and redirect our energy to the real goals of the Forum. :-)
From a process standpoint, it would be helpful if you can clarify your view on these matters: >>>Right. Some of this will be much more clear as described in the process >>>ballot (183), which will be circulated shortly. 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7? >>>Pursuant to Section 7.3.1, the PAG is convened by the PAG Chair, and the >>>timing is at the discretion of the PAG Chair. So if the PAG Chair decides >>>that the PAG should be formed before the vote on the Ballot is complete in >>>light of the Exclusion Notices received, then that’s what should happen and >>>voting will be suspended. This makes sense because members would not want >>>to vote on the Ballot without knowing the PAG’s conclusion on the >>>Exclusions. Voting on the Ballot would then take place after the PAG >>>provides its conclusion on the Exclusion(s). Voting members would then have >>>the PAG conclusion and their own patent analyses available prior to voting >>>(unless the PAG does not recommend proceeding to a vote, in which case the >>>proponents will likely withdraw the Ballot). 2) Does the formation of a PAG begin independent of any ballot results? >>>Yes. The filing of Exclusion Notices for a Ballot triggers the formation of >>>a PAG, and the PAG Chair determines the timing of the formation. 3) Does the formation of a PAG prevent members from submitting text identical to Ballot 182, should it fail? >>>No, although it’s not clear why a member would submit an identical Ballot, >>>as such a ballot could end up in a PAG with the same or similar Exclusion >>>Notices. 4) Does the formation of a PAG otherwise obligate any other Ballot (including an identical one) from going forward? >>>It may not make sense to submit two identical Ballots simultaneously. But >>>the PAG wouldn’t prevent any other Ballot from going forward, unless the new >>>Ballot was somehow dependent on the Ballot in the PAG - then it might be >>>logically precluded. As the Forum continues to discuss the best way forward regarding exclusion notices and voting, it's useful to understand how such practical considerations play out. >>>Right. This is why we’re working on getting the process Ballot (183) out, >>>to help the Forum understand the (new) process. For example, two 'bugs' that I can see with possible applications of this process: A) We form a PAG, but members don't go forward with reintroducing the Ballot, regardless of what the PAG suggests. >>>Right. The original proposer/endorsers may not be comfortable proceeding in >>>light of the PAG’s conclusion. If another member wanted to reintroduce the >>>Ballot they could, but with the possibility that exclusions could be filed >>>and another PAG could be formed. B) We form a PAG, and any further ballots related to this are 'held up' waiting for the PAG to resolve >>>Again, unless a Ballot is somehow dependent on another Ballot being >>>considered by the PAG, other Ballots should not be held up. As much as possible, I want to avoid B, and it would seem that if A is a possibility, it would imply that members that did not sponsor Ballot 182 should not otherwise be inclined to participate in the PAG unless either they are willing to co-sponsor a ballot that reintroduces the text (with the corrections of the Ballot) or unless/until the original co-sponsors of the Ballot make an equivalent committment. In the absence of that, there seems nothing productive that could result from the PAG. >>>Yes, avoiding B sounds like a good idea. There are many other solutions >>>that the PAG could consider/help implement. Please see section 7.3.2 of the >>>IPR Policy for some examples. Also, in other SDOs, members who have not >>>filed exclusions have a strong interest in participating on the PAG to help >>>find a way to move forward. It may not make sense to require members to >>>commit in advance that they’ll support something without knowing what the >>>PAG’s conclusion will be. It may be that one exclusion has an easy >>>resolution, and another does not. It’s generally not possible to know in >>>advance, because there are many factors outside of the Forum’s control. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:32 PM, [email protected] wrote: Send Public mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182 (Ryan Sleevi) 2. Re: Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182 (Kirk Hall) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:59:05 -0800 From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> To: "CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182 Message-ID: <cacvawvazcmlcn5qbs3ehnultubtw1b3olgsg6xavatiz7cg...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > From a process standpoint, it would be helpful if you can clarify your view on these matters: 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7? 2) Does the formation of a PAG begin independent of any ballot results? 3) Does the formation of a PAG prevent members from submitting text identical to Ballot 182, should it fail? 4) Does the formation of a PAG otherwise obligate any other Ballot (including an identical one) from going forward? As the Forum continues to discuss the best way forward regarding exclusion notices and voting, it's useful to understand how such practical considerations play out. For example, two 'bugs' that I can see with possible applications of this process: A) We form a PAG, but members don't go forward with reintroducing the Ballot, regardless of what the PAG suggests. B) We form a PAG, and any further ballots related to this are 'held up' waiting for the PAG to resolve As much as possible, I want to avoid B, and it would seem that if A is a possibility, it would imply that members that did not sponsor Ballot 182 should not otherwise be inclined to participate in the PAG unless either they are willing to co-sponsor a ballot that reintroduces the text (with the corrections of the Ballot) or unless/until the original co-sponsors of the Ballot make an equivalent committment. In the absence of that, there seems nothing productive that could result from the PAG. These are important considerations when considering future process proposals for future ballots, if they're not desirable for the current ballots. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > Because there were Exclusion Notices filed for Ballot 182 during the > Review Period, we must now form a Patent Advisory Group to review the > Exclusion Notices. Once convened, the PAG will elect its own Chair, who > can?t be affiliated with a company that filed an Essential Claim. > > > > *Who will volunteer to serve on the PAG?* > > > > Our IPR Policy provides as follows: > > > > *7. Exception Handling* > > > > *7.1. PAG Formation* > > > > In 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, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the > conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted specifically in relation > to the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline containing the > conflict. A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could > help avoid anticipated patent problems. > > > > *7.3. PAG Procedures* > > > > *7.3.1. PAG Formation Timing* > > > > 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. The timing for convening the PAG is at the > discretion of the Chair. In some cases, convening a PAG before a specific > patent disclosure is made may be useful. In other cases, it may be that the > PAG can better resolve the licensing problems when the specification is at > the Review Period level. > > > > *7.3.2. Possible PAG Conclusions* > > > > After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude: > > > > a. The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the work on the > Guideline to continue. > > b. The CAB Forum should be instructed to consider designing around the > identified claims. > > c. The PAG should seek further information and evaluation, including and > not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under > which CAB Forum RF licensing requirements may be met. > > d. The project relating to the Draft Guideline in question should be > terminated. > > e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should be rescinded. > > f. Alternative licensing terms should be considered. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170103/ce0f763b/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 22:32:00 +0000 From: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I don?t know the answer to all your questions ? the only thing we have to go on is Sec. 7.1 and 7.3 of the IPR Policy, which I included in my call for volunteers. We can discuss on the first PAG call. I do believe the filing of Exclusion Notices stops a ballot under consideration from proceeding to a vote ? instead, the proposed ballot is submitted to the PAG for its conclusions on how to ?resolve the conflict? where an Exclusion Notice was filed without offer of a royalty free license. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:59 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182 From a process standpoint, it would be helpful if you can clarify your view on these matters: 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7? 2) Does the formation of a PAG begin independent of any ballot results? 3) Does the formation of a PAG prevent members from submitting text identical to Ballot 182, should it fail? 4) Does the formation of a PAG otherwise obligate any other Ballot (including an identical one) from going forward? As the Forum continues to discuss the best way forward regarding exclusion notices and voting, it's useful to understand how such practical considerations play out. For example, two 'bugs' that I can see with possible applications of this process: A) We form a PAG, but members don't go forward with reintroducing the Ballot, regardless of what the PAG suggests. B) We form a PAG, and any further ballots related to this are 'held up' waiting for the PAG to resolve As much as possible, I want to avoid B, and it would seem that if A is a possibility, it would imply that members that did not sponsor Ballot 182 should not otherwise be inclined to participate in the PAG unless either they are willing to co-sponsor a ballot that reintroduces the text (with the corrections of the Ballot) or unless/until the original co-sponsors of the Ballot make an equivalent committment. In the absence of that, there seems nothing productive that could result from the PAG. These are important considerations when considering future process proposals for future ballots, if they're not desirable for the current ballots. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Because there were Exclusion Notices filed for Ballot 182 during the Review Period, we must now form a Patent Advisory Group to review the Exclusion Notices. Once convened, the PAG will elect its own Chair, who can?t be affiliated with a company that filed an Essential Claim. Who will volunteer to serve on the PAG? Our IPR Policy provides as follows: 7. Exception Handling 7.1. PAG Formation In 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, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted specifically in relation to the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline containing the conflict. A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could help avoid anticipated patent problems. 7.3. PAG Procedures 7.3.1. PAG Formation Timing 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. The timing for convening the PAG is at the discretion of the Chair. In some cases, convening a PAG before a specific patent disclosure is made may be useful. In other cases, it may be that the PAG can better resolve the licensing problems when the specification is at the Review Period level. 7.3.2. Possible PAG Conclusions After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude: a. The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the work on the Guideline to continue. b. The CAB Forum should be instructed to consider designing around the identified claims. c. The PAG should seek further information and evaluation, including and not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under which CAB Forum RF licensing requirements may be met. d. The project relating to the Draft Guideline in question should be terminated. e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should be rescinded. f. Alternative licensing terms should be considered. _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170103/e416a2a8/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public ------------------------------ End of Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19 **************************************
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
