Hi Ryan, Ok, thanks for your clarification. Would you please send me an example, because for some reason I didn’t receive any of the Review Notices. Also, I’m hoping that, in the future, people will bring these issues up sooner so that they can be addressed when they arise, rather than creating several months of potential IP vulnerabilities for CAB Forum members. Thanks.
Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com> On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com> wrote: Virginia, I don't think there's been any question as to what the required content of the Ballots are - it is the question about Review Notices, which is covered by the IP Policy. More concretely, until this week, there was no copy available to members, publicly or privately, as to what the Final Guideline(s) were or are at the time of the Ballot. How does one effectively complete an IP Review for potential implications under such a scenario? That is, you stated "The ballot would not need to include the entire set of Guidelines, because people can look on the Forum website and see the rest of the document that would remain unchanged." - except until this week, that was not possible to do. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote: Hi all, It would be helpful if we all look at the actual text of the Bylaws before opining on what is/is not required and what should/should not be added to the Bylaws. This is the current section of the Bylaws addressing redlining: (a) A Draft Guideline Ballot will clearly indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline or a Final Maintenance Guideline. If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Guideline, such ballot will include the full text of the Draft Guideline intended to become a Final Guideline. If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below. The IPR Policy defines Final Guideline and Final Maintenance Guideline in Section 8.3. Please note that redlining is required when modifying/amending existing Guidelines (such a modification or amendment is called a “Maintenance Guideline” in the IPR Policy). This is, for example, changing the language of one of the validation methods in Section 3.2, or adding a validation method to that section. In in this case you would only send a redlined section of Section 3.2 or whichever section(s) of the Bylaws you modified. The ballot would not need to include the entire set of Guidelines, because people can look on the Forum website and see the rest of the document that would remain unchanged. What benefit would there be from requiring attaching the full document to all ballots? In the event someone is proposing a new “Final Guideline” - meaning an entirely new set of guidelines (which will likely happen with the new Working Groups), and not an amendment to the existing guidelines, then you would need to attach a copy of the entire guidelines document, because it would all be new. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 <tel:(669)%20227-9595> ✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com> On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:25 PM, public-requ...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org> wrote: Send Public mailing list submissions to public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to public-requ...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org> You can reach the person managing the list at public-ow...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-ow...@cabforum.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Review Notices (Rich Smith) 2. Re: Review Notices (Tim Hollebeek) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:16:59 -0600 From: "Rich Smith" <r...@comodoca.com <mailto:r...@comodoca.com>> To: "'Ryan Sleevi'" <sle...@google.com <mailto:sle...@google.com>>, "'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List'" <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>>, "'Kirk Hall'" <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices Message-ID: <074d01d39ec6$aa71e320$ff55a960$@comodoca.com <http://comodoca.com/>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I think Ryan and Kirk are both right. Ryan in that for effective review the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes under review also makes review more difficult. I propose that we change such that we keep the requirement to send out the full document text, but permit (encourage?) redlining of the ballot changes to which the review notice pertains. Thoughts? Regards, Rich Smith Sr. Compliance Manager Comodo CA From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM To: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> <mailto:public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> > wrote: Virginia ? we have been following the steps you listed below, and have been sending out ?Review Notices? since Ballot 190 that included the specific Ballot language in ?track changes? mode showing how our guidelines (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot ? I believed that this complied with our Bylaws shown below. Unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out a few days ago, our Review Notices can?t include just the specific Ballot language showing the changes that were made by the Ballot, but must include ?a complete draft of the Draft Guideline [i.e., the entire BR or EVGL document itself] that is the subject of such notice?. Oddly enough, the IPR Agreement language doesn?t allow the ?Draft Guideline? that is sent with the Review Notice to show what changes were made by the Ballot, so it?s not very helpful to Members for their IP review. Kirk, If you recall our last discussions of the IP Policy, this was an intentional decision, and one we rather thoroughly discussed in the context of multiple ballots being pursued in parallel. Given that the decision to add or remove language has IP connotations in its surrounding textual environment, the choice to provide a fully integrated copy (the one "true" version) was the only method that would allow for effective and meaningful review of the IP obligations. Given, for example, the failure to publish timely 'full' copies in a reliable way, this is perhaps proof positive of the potential challenges that would exist if your 'redline-only' IP policy were adopted. I'm not sure how Entrust is doing its IP review, but having a full document with all of the necessary obligations is how Google does its review, and a number of members expressed similar views, and a number of SDOs follow similar approaches. Regarding the proposed Ballot Range - I happened to pick Ballot 187 as the start of examples rather intentionally in my list at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html> Ballot 183 was the bylaws Ballot 184 did not progress Ballot 185 failed Ballot 186 did not progress Ballot 187 was the first, post 180/181/182 set of changes to modify the BRs 182 did not progress due to the formation of the PAG 180, 181, and 182 each proposed to adopt the full documents, but as you recall, used a process that the Forum had never exercised before, even under its previous IPR Policy (namely, the review being kicked off prior to voting, and without the full text or redline provided). There was sufficient ambiguity with that process which was itself problematic. https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html> was the resultant mail that contained those documents -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/4181e6fd/attachment-0001.html <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/4181e6fd/attachment-0001.html>> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:24:55 +0000 From: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>> To: Rich Smith <r...@comodoca.com <mailto:r...@comodoca.com>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>>, 'Ryan Sleevi' <sle...@google.com <mailto:sle...@google.com>>, 'Kirk Hall' <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices Message-ID: <mwhpr14mb1376c2f6c20b4e00507261d483...@mwhpr14mb1376.namprd14.prod.outlook.com <mailto:mwhpr14mb1376c2f6c20b4e00507261d483...@mwhpr14mb1376.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I support this, because the technology we are currently using offers the option of viewing the final document without redlining if you so choose. -Tim From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Rich Smith via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:17 PM To: 'Ryan Sleevi' <sle...@google.com <mailto:sle...@google.com>>; 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>>; 'Kirk Hall' <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices I think Ryan and Kirk are both right. Ryan in that for effective review the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes under review also makes review more difficult. I propose that we change such that we keep the requirement to send out the full document text, but permit (encourage?) redlining of the ballot changes to which the review notice pertains. Thoughts? Regards, Rich Smith Sr. Compliance Manager Comodo CA From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM To: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com <mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> <mailto:public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> <mailto:public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> > wrote: Virginia ? we have been following the steps you listed below, and have been sending out ?Review Notices? since Ballot 190 that included the specific Ballot language in ?track changes? mode showing how our guidelines (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot ? I believed that this complied with our Bylaws shown below. Unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out a few days ago, our Review Notices can?t include just the specific Ballot language showing the changes that were made by the Ballot, but must include ?a complete draft of the Draft Guideline [i.e., the entire BR or EVGL document itself] that is the subject of such notice?. Oddly enough, the IPR Agreement language doesn?t allow the ?Draft Guideline? that is sent with the Review Notice to show what changes were made by the Ballot, so it?s not very helpful to Members for their IP review. Kirk, If you recall our last discussions of the IP Policy, this was an intentional decision, and one we rather thoroughly discussed in the context of multiple ballots being pursued in parallel. Given that the decision to add or remove language has IP connotations in its surrounding textual environment, the choice to provide a fully integrated copy (the one "true" version) was the only method that would allow for effective and meaningful review of the IP obligations. Given, for example, the failure to publish timely 'full' copies in a reliable way, this is perhaps proof positive of the potential challenges that would exist if your 'redline-only' IP policy were adopted. I'm not sure how Entrust is doing its IP review, but having a full document with all of the necessary obligations is how Google does its review, and a number of members expressed similar views, and a number of SDOs follow similar approaches. Regarding the proposed Ballot Range - I happened to pick Ballot 187 as the start of examples rather intentionally in my list at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html> Ballot 183 was the bylaws Ballot 184 did not progress Ballot 185 failed Ballot 186 did not progress Ballot 187 was the first, post 180/181/182 set of changes to modify the BRs 182 did not progress due to the formation of the PAG 180, 181, and 182 each proposed to adopt the full documents, but as you recall, used a process that the Forum had never exercised before, even under its previous IPR Policy (namely, the review being kicked off prior to voting, and without the full text or redline provided). There was sufficient ambiguity with that process which was itself problematic. https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html> was the resultant mail that contained those documents -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.html <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.html>> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4940 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.p7s <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.p7s>> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> ------------------------------ End of Public Digest, Vol 70, Issue 31 ************************************** _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
