Hi Virginia –
Apologies for the delay in replying. On #1, the section is titled Limitation on Licensing Requirements and only talks about Members. Since Interested Parties and Associate Members aren’t Members I don’t think the current language accomplishes the intent. If the intent is to ensure that the licensing requirements apply to Interested Parties or Associate Members who attend but don’t join a Working Group I think a new section should be drafted to address this. Also, other parts of section 5 will have to be revised as well to address non-Members and non-Participants granting licenses. Would something like this work? Section 3.3 Patent Licensing Obligations of Interested Parties and Associate Members As a condition of attending a Working Group meeting, Associate Members and Interested Parties are required to agree in writing to grant, under any Essential Claims related to any Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline of the particular Working Group attended, the RF License (as defined in Section 5 below). This requirement includes Essential Claims that the Associate Member or Interested Party owns and any that the Associate Member or Interested Party has the right to license without obligation of payment or other consideration to an unrelated third party. Second 5.1b should be expanded to include Associate Member or Interested Party. Section 5.3 should be revised to take into account that Interested Parties and Associate Members are granting licenses as well. Your explanation on #2 below makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. I couldn’t find the schedule for governance reform WG calls on the wiki, is this posted somewhere else? It might be easier to speak rather than write :) Dave From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:29 PM To: Blunt, Dave <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Informal discussion period - Ballot 206 and related documents 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
