Hi Peter, I think we referenced the right section, 3.2.2.4.9 Test Certificate, in the exclusion notice.
From: Peter Bowen [mailto:p...@amzn.com] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 2:52 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Doug Beattie <doug.beat...@globalsign.com> Cc: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182 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 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 <public@cabforum.org<mailto:public@cabforum.org>> 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:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 4:49 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org<mailto:public@cabforum.org>> Cc: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com<mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> 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 Public@cabforum.org<mailto:Public@cabforum.org> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
