Hi Dave,
Thanks very much for your questions - I appreciate that you’re looking at the
documents so closely!
1. What is the intent of “otherwise agreeing to the licensing terms
described in the policy” in section 3.2? It seems only relevant if there are
other licensing terms in the policy, but I don’t see any.
It looks like this question pertains to Section 3.2 of the IPR Policy. The
language you’ve referenced is there for situations where a participant would
need to sign the IPR Agreement before joining a working group. For example, we
had some potential “Interested Parties” who wanted to attend the F2F meeting -
they would have to sign the IPR agreement first, as it’s not clear if they’d be
joining a WG. The “licensing terms” are in Section 5 of the IPR Policy.
2. In the definition of Participant can we change “may be” to “are”? i.e.
“Participant” means a Member who is participating in one or more Working Groups
of the CAB Forum, together with its Affiliates. Interested Parties and
Associate Members may be are considered “Participants” for purposes of Working
Group participation, but they do not gain any CAB Forum membership privileges
thereby.
This is from Section 8.3.j of the IPR Policy. The reason for the “may”
here is that Interested Parties and Associated Members may not always qualify
for participation in a WG. If a WG requires technical experience related to
security breaches on the Internet and disclosure of credit card information,
Interested Parties/Associate Members may not have sufficient knowledge or
experience to participate - so we wouldn’t want to say they “are” Participants
of that working group. They “may” be Participants in a WG that they qualify
for. Does that make sense?
Best regards,
Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Mar 14, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Blunt, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
I had a couple of comments about the ballot:
1. What is the intent of “otherwise agreeing to the licensing terms
described in the policy” in section 3.2? It seems only relevant if there are
other licensing terms in the policy, but I don’t see any.
2. In the definition of Participant can we change “may be” to “are”? i.e.
“Participant” means a Member who is participating in one or more Working Groups
of the CAB Forum, together with its Affiliates. Interested Parties and
Associate Members may be are considered “Participants” for purposes of Working
Group participation, but they do not gain any CAB Forum membership privileges
thereby.
Dave
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia
Fournier via Public
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:42 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Informal discussion period - Ballot 206 and related
documents
Hello all,
I understand that some of you may not have received the FAQ document with
yesterday’s email, so I’m attaching it again here. Please let me know if
you’re having problems with any other documents. Thanks!
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
