Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

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 <(669)%20227-9595>
>> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:25 PM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>>
>> Send Public mailing list submissions to
>> public@cabforum.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 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>
>> To: "'Ryan Sleevi'" <sle...@google.com>, "'CA/Browser Forum Public
>> Discussion List'" <public@cabforum.org>, "'Kirk Hall'"
>> <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>
>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices
>> Message-ID: <074d01d39ec6$aa71e320$ff55a960$@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] On Behalf Of Ryan
>> Sleevi via Public
>> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM
>> To: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
>> Discussion List <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

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

[Virginia Fournier via Public]

t;'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 +
From: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com 
<mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>>
To: Rich Smith <r...@comodoca.com <mailto:r...@comodoca.com>&g

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

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> 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 <(669)%20227-9595>
> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:25 PM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
> public@cabforum.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 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>
> To: "'Ryan Sleevi'" <sle...@google.com>, "'CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List'" <public@cabforum.org>, "'Kirk Hall'"
> <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices
> Message-ID: <074d01d39ec6$aa71e320$ff55a960$@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 difficu

[cabfpub] Review Notices

[Virginia Fournier via Public]

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
✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com>






On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:25 PM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
public-requ...@cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
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>
To: "'Ryan Sleevi'" <sle...@google.com>, "'CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List'" <public@cabforum.org>, "'Kirk Hall'"
    <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices
Message-ID: <074d01d39ec6$aa71e320$ff55a960$@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] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via 
Public
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM
To: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public 
Discussion List <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> > 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 

[cabfpub] Review Notices / Ballot 206 - the gate is now closed

[Virginia Fournier via Public]

Hi Kirk,

Yes, we can consider adding this to the IPR Policy for this ballot.  But the 
problem is that every time something comes up, someone wants to add it to this 
ballot.  This is part of the reason we’ve been working on this ballot for over 
a year and it’s still not done.

At some point, we have to call this ballot closed for new subject matter, new 
issues, and new changes.  Now is that point.  From this point forward we are 
not accepting anything new for Ballot 206.  We will consider correcting typos, 
glaring errors, fake news, etc., but nothing substantive.  Come on folks - 
we’ve been looking at these documents for over a year.  We are not trying to 
boil the ocean with one ballot.

Any new issues, questions, changes, non-fake news, etc. that comes up from this 
point on will need to be held for another ballot. 

Thanks for your help.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com>






On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:01 PM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
public-requ...@cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
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. Review Notices (Kirk Hall)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 02:00:56 +
From: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Review Notices
Message-ID:
<f055926d98be4a7595504154057fd...@pmspex04.corporate.datacard.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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.

As a result, I will be sending out revised Review Notices this week that 
include the entire ?Draft Guideline that is the subject of such notice? for the 
following ballots: Ballots 190, 191-193, 195-197, 199, 201, 204, 207, 210, 
214-215, and 217.  Because there were no Exclusion Notices filed last time in 
response to the Review Notices sent (except for Ballot 190, where royalty free 
licenses were granted), I doubt there will be any new Exclusion Notices 
submitted this time.

As a separate matter, I note that the Governance Change Working Group is 
already working on an updated draft of our IPR Agreement.  I suggest the WG 
consider changing IPRA Sec. 4.1 so that Review Notices for Final Maintenance 
Guidelines (our typical ballots) only provide the specific Guideline language 
that was changed by a Ballot (in ?track changes? mode), and not the entire 
Draft Guideline (i.e., don?t send the entire BR or EVGL document that doesn?t 
showing the changes made by the Ballot).  That would seem more useful to Forum 
Members in reviewing a Review Notice for the purpose of providing Exclusion 
Notices.

Here?s a further explanation.

WHAT OUR BYLAWS SAY ABOUT BALLOTS AND REVIEW NOTICES

Here are the relevant portions of what our Bylaws say about Ballots that 
propose a ?Final Maintenance Guideline? (something that amends the existing BRs 
or EVGL), which is different from a ?Final Guideline? (which is a whole new set 
of requirements in a new document):

2.4   Requirements for Draft Guideline Ballots
This section applies to any ballot that proposes a Final Guideline or a Final 
Maintenance Guideline (a ?Draft Guideline Ballot?), all as defined under the 
Forum?s IPR Policy.  Draft Guideline Ballots must comply with the following 
rules in addition to the requirements set forth in Section 2.3 above.
(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 Fina

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

[Tim Hollebeek via Public]

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] On Behalf Of Rich Smith via 
Public
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:17 PM
To: 'Ryan Sleevi' <sle...@google.com>; 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion 
List' <public@cabforum.org>; 'Kirk Hall' <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] 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> > 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

 

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 was the 
resultant mail that contained those documents

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

[Rich Smith via Public]

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] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via 
Public
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM
To: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public 
Discussion List <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> > 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

 

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 was the 
resultant mail that contained those documents

 

___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

[cabfpub] Review Notices

[Kirk Hall via Public]

 the entire “Draft Guideline” be part of the Review notice, 
as Ryan pointed out a few days ago.  This means the entire updated BR or EVGL 
document, not showing what the Ballot changes were:

IPR Agreement Sec. 4.1 - Review of Draft Specifications.
Prior to the approval of a CAB Forum Draft Guideline as a CAB Forum Final 
Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline there shall be a review period during 
which Participants may exclude certain Essential Claims from CAB Forum RF 
Licenses. The CAB Forum Chair shall initiate the Review Period by distributing 
to each CAB Forum Participant a notice of review period and a complete draft of 
the Draft Guideline that is the subject of such notice (“Review Notice”). Each 
Participant on behalf of itself and its Affiliates shall have sixty (60) days 
following the date of the receipt of such Review Notice (“Review Period”) to 
review such Draft Guideline and consider any licensing obligations with respect 
to any Essential Claims that may be encompassed by such Draft Guideline. The 
approval of a CAB Forum Final Maintenance Guideline shall follow the same 
process except that the Review Period shall be thirty (30) days.


From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia 
Fournier via Public
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 12:22 PM
To: public@cabforum.org<mailto:public@cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Review Notices

I agree that some Review Notices that have been sent out may not comply with 
Section 2.4(e) of the Bylaws.  The sequence of events is important, and there 
was a very thorough discussion about this sequence in connection with the 
ballot.

A thumbnail sketch of the sequence:


  *   7-day discussion period
  *   7-day voting period
  *   Ballot passes the Initial Vote (if it doesn’t, stop here).
  *   Chair initiates Review Period (30 or 60 days) with Review Notice to 
Public and Member lists
  *   If no exclusion notices are filed during the Review Period, then ballot 
is approved.
  *   If there are exclusion notices filed during the Review Period, then 
ballot is not approved at that time, then PAG, etc.

So, here’s the question, was a Review Notice sent out after a Ballot passed, 
and, if so, did the Review Notice include the correct information?  If not, the 
Ballot was not properly approved, a new Review Notice will need to be sent out 
with the correct information, and participants will need to be given a new 
Review Period.  Otherwise, the Ballot will not be “approved” according to the 
Bylaws.

Any questions about this?

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ v...@apple.com<mailto:v...@apple.com>





On Feb 1, 2018, at 10:33 AM, 
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
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: Public Digest, Vol 69, Issue 118 (Ryan Sleevi)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:32:15 -0500
From: Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com<mailto:sle...@google.com>>
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>>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <vfourn...@apple.com<mailto:vfourn...@apple.com>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 69, Issue 118
Message-ID:

<cacvawvaycxkz1s00ftlz+spnm3pvqvuijx_6fnwkbi9jkpz...@mail.gmail.com<mailto:cacvawvaycxkz1s00ftlz+spnm3pvqvuijx_6fnwkbi9jkpz...@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Kirk,

As mentioned previously, these Review Notices don't comply with Section
2.4(e) of the Bylaws and our IPR Policy, Section 4.1

As per https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.2.pdf
Prior to the approval of a CAB Forum Draft Guideline as a CAB Forum Final
Guideline or Final
Maintenance Guideline there shall be a review period during which
Participants may exclude
CA/B Forum Intellectual Property Rights Policy, v. 1.2 Page 2
certain Essential Claims from CAB Forum RF Licenses. The CAB Forum Chair
shall initiate the
Review Period by distributing to each CAB Forum Participant **a notice of
review period and a
complete draft of the Draft Guideline that is the subject of such not

Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

Going back for several ballots

Ballot 187 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-March/009989.html
Ballot 189 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-April/010541.html
Ballot 190 -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-September/012103.html
Ballot 191 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-May/011158.html
Ballot 192 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-June/011463.html
Ballot 193 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-March/010203.html
Ballot 194 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-April/010563.html
(although this was the ballot with questionable -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-April/010622.html ) and
substituted by Ballot 197
Ballot 195 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-April/010616.html
Ballot 196 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-April/010617.html
Ballot 197 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-May/010906.html
(note: Replaced 194)
Ballot 198 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-May/010969.html
(however, this was deemed to be an invalid ballot -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-May/011097.html )
Ballot 199 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-May/010984.html
Ballot 200 - Bylaws only (
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-May/011197.html )
Ballot 201 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-August/011992.html
Ballot 202 - (Failed)
Ballot 203 - Formation of a WG (
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-June/011382.html )
Ballot 204 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-July/011581.html
Ballot 205 - Bylaws change -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-July/011541.html
Ballot 206 - (Bylaws and IPR discussion, still being worked on)
Ballot 207 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-October/012411.html
Ballot 208 - Failed (
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-October/012444.html )
Ballot 209 - (Has not gone forward)
Ballot 210 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-August/011994.html
Ballot 211 - Withdrawn
Ballot 212 -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-September/012007.html - No
review notice
Ballot 213 - (Has not gone forward)
Ballot 214 -
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-September/012191.html
Ballot 215 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-October/012253.html
Ballot 216 - Bylaws Change
Ballot 217 - https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-December/012657.html

The question is whether Review Notices such as
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-December/012657.html meet the
criteria set out in the IPR Policy. As you can see, many (all?) of these
fail to include a full copy. Some may include an attachment with the text
of the Ballot, but at no point an integrated Draft Guideline that will be
adopted as the Final Maintenance Guideline has been provided.


On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:

> I agree that some Review Notices that have been sent out may not comply
> with Section 2.4(e) of the Bylaws.  The sequence of events is important,
> and there was a very thorough discussion about this sequence in connection
> with the ballot.
>
> A thumbnail sketch of the sequence:
>
>
>- 7-day discussion period
>- 7-day voting period
>- Ballot passes the Initial Vote (if it doesn’t, stop here).
>- Chair initiates Review Period (30 or 60 days) with Review Notice to
>Public and Member lists
>- If no exclusion notices are filed during the Review Period, then
>ballot is approved.
>- If there are exclusion notices filed during the Review Period, then
>ballot is not approved at that time, then PAG, etc.
>
>
> So, here’s the question, was a Review Notice sent out after a Ballot
> passed, and, if so, did the Review Notice include the correct information?
> If not, the Ballot was not properly approved, a new Review Notice will need
> to be sent out with the correct information, and participants will need to
> be given a new Review Period.  Otherwise, the Ballot will not be “approved”
> according to the Bylaws.
>
> Any questions about this?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595 <(669)%20227-9595>
> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 10:33 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
> public@cabforum.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 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: Public Digest, Vol 69, Issue 118 (Ryan Sleevi)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:32:15 -0500
> From: Ryan Sleevi 

[cabfpub] Review Notices

[Virginia Fournier via Public]

I agree that some Review Notices that have been sent out may not comply with 
Section 2.4(e) of the Bylaws.  The sequence of events is important, and there 
was a very thorough discussion about this sequence in connection with the 
ballot.

A thumbnail sketch of the sequence:

7-day discussion period
7-day voting period
Ballot passes the Initial Vote (if it doesn’t, stop here).
Chair initiates Review Period (30 or 60 days) with Review Notice to Public and 
Member lists
If no exclusion notices are filed during the Review Period, then ballot is 
approved.
If there are exclusion notices filed during the Review Period, then ballot is 
not approved at that time, then PAG, etc.

So, here’s the question, was a Review Notice sent out after a Ballot passed, 
and, if so, did the Review Notice include the correct information?  If not, the 
Ballot was not properly approved, a new Review Notice will need to be sent out 
with the correct information, and participants will need to be given a new 
Review Period.  Otherwise, the Ballot will not be “approved” according to the 
Bylaws.

Any questions about this?


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ v...@apple.com 






On Feb 1, 2018, at 10:33 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
public-requ...@cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
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: Public Digest, Vol 69, Issue 118 (Ryan Sleevi)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:32:15 -0500
From: Ryan Sleevi 
To: Kirk Hall ,  "CA/Browser Forum
Public Discussion List" 
Cc: Virginia Fournier 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 69, Issue 118
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Kirk,

As mentioned previously, these Review Notices don't comply with Section
2.4(e) of the Bylaws and our IPR Policy, Section 4.1

As per https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.2.pdf
Prior to the approval of a CAB Forum Draft Guideline as a CAB Forum Final
Guideline or Final
Maintenance Guideline there shall be a review period during which
Participants may exclude
CA/B Forum Intellectual Property Rights Policy, v. 1.2 Page 2
certain Essential Claims from CAB Forum RF Licenses. The CAB Forum Chair
shall initiate the
Review Period by distributing to each CAB Forum Participant **a notice of
review period and a
complete draft of the Draft Guideline that is the subject of such notice
(?Review Notice?)**. Each
Participant on behalf of itself and its Affiliates shall have sixty (60)
days following the date of
the receipt of such Review Notice (?Review Period?) to review such Draft
Guideline and
consider any licensing obligations with respect to any Essential Claims
that may be encompassed
by such Draft Guideline. The approval of a CAB Forum Final Maintenance
Guideline shall
follow the same process except that the Review Period shall be thirty (30)
days.


I think the important part is "a complete draft of the Draft Guideline"

Not a redline, but the complete draft - the fully integrated text.


On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Kirk Hall via Public 
wrote:

> Virginia ? yes, we have been posting Review Notices for every ballot that
> changes the Guidelines since Ballot 190 to the Public list ? just search on
> ?Review Notice? and you should see them.  Here is an example.
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Virginia
> Fournier via Public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:09 PM
> *To:* public@cabforum.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 69, Issue 118
> 
> 
> 
> Hi - I don?t recall seeing any Review Notices sent out pursuant to Section
> 2.4(e) of the Bylaws.  What is happening with those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia Fournier
> 
> Senior Standards Counsel
> 
> ? Apple Inc.
> 
> ? 669-227-9595 <(669)%20227-9595>
> 
> ?? v...@apple.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 27, 2018, at 4:20 PM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
>public@cabforum.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>public-requ...@cabforum.org
> 
> You can reach the