(resending to fix a typo) > On Jan 13, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Peter Bowen via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Doug, > > I think it would be great to have someone from GlobalSign on the PAG, as I > was rather confused when I saw the GlobalSign exclusion notice posted. The > IPR policy specifically does not allow a member to file exclusions on items > contributed by the member. As I’m sure you remember, Section 3.2.2.4.9 in > ballots 169 and 182 is the method that you contributed in the validation > working group. Did the GlobalSign notice cite the wrong section? > > Thanks, > Peter > > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Doug Beattie via Public <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Kirk, >> >> Carolyn Oldenburg of GlobalSign would like to volunteer to be on the PAG >> assuming there is not a conflict because we filed an exclusion notice. >> >> Doug >> <> >> From: Public [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public >> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 4:49 PM >> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Kirk Hall <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group >> (PAG) for Ballot 182 >> >> 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 >> <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
