No, I dropped the Public list accidentally – reposting now. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 3:13 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Analysis of individuals participating as Interested Parties
Oh, I realize you dropped the mail list - was that intentional? I think this would be better on-list On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: How is that materially different than a member who contributes another members IP? On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: No, all I’m doing is trying to get our IPR documents to reflect what we apparently want them to do. Right now, neither individual nor entity Interested Parties fall within the definition of Participants, and so are not bound by our IPR Agreement. We can fix that. Once fixed, individuals who sign up as Interested Parties can still contribute the intellectual property of their employers and get them included in our requirements without telling us, and their employers will not be bound by the IPR Agreements the individuals signed in an individual capacity (and their employers can sue all Forum members for infringement, etc. because they never signed anything and did not have to respond to any Review Notices). While we can get mad at the individuals who participated as Interested Parties and contributed the intellectual property of their employers, and maybe even sue them for violating their reps and warranties to us, that will not solve the infringement problem as to any claims from their employers. But the first step is to fix our documents so that Interested Parties are bound to the requirements of Participants – that is not the case today. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:05 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Analysis of individuals participating as Interested Parties On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It’s possible we could solve this problem simply by changing the definition of Participants in our IPRA to also include “individuals”, in addition to entities. But that could apply to all “individuals” who participate (even on behalf of their employers), so we need to think this through carefully. Could you expand on what you mean here / what your concern is with the "(even on behalf of their employers)"? It sounds like you see some risk to individuals participating 'on behalf of' their employer, where their employer is not directly a member - is that correct? Could you expand on what you believe that risk is? Should you care to dive into the nuance of alternative IP policies, during the last time we revisited the IPRA, we discussed the IETF Notewell, which is akin to a "warning to summarize the expectations", with the broader expansion of the IP agreement captured at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378 (and others, but let's focus on this). Within the IETF, the following is I think particularly relevant for concerns regarding individuals versus entities, namely https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378#section-5.6
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
