Hi all,
I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not the right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an “interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents even not working now for GoDaddy.
The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, that an exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I have some questions, some regarding the procedure and some others regarding the exclusion notice itself and what we have in the wiki.
As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):
a. A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed, in accordance with Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG will make a conclusion as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and communicate such conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List; and
b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and endorsers decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:
So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is considered null, there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to be formed. I added this topic to the WG call agenda for next Thursday (I won´t be running the call because I´m on holidays for Easter) and I was going to send an email to the SC public list indicating that the ballot is null (BTW, we don´t have any kind of template to make such communication). Is this the right interpretation of the bylaws?
OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found that would like to share.
31-July-2012 | US Pat. No.7,702,902 | Unspecified | Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to receive a secure socket layer certificate | Unstated |
With all of this, and of course, waiting for the conclusion from the PAG, I´d like to provide some thoughts and a preliminary opinion.
Thoughts?
Regards
I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, not you. They may come to the same conclusions, but it’s better to be done that way.
I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the issues at hand.
Dean
_______________________________________________ Infrastructure mailing list Infrast...@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Yes and no. As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related to the infrastructure group as such, but there are things that need to be discussed, like templates, change the bylaws (i.e., which public group? The WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or general?), wiki info, etc.
This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for the infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed) but some can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how to deal with these matters.
De: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzac...@harica.gr>
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
Para: Dean Coclin <dean....@digicert.com>; Inigo Barreira <Inigo.B...@sectigo.com>; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure <infrast...@cabforum.org>
Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks Dean. Yes, that´s the idea and it has been included as the only topic for the Thursday call (unfortunately I won´t attend it and I think Kiran will run it).
Yes and no.
As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related to the infrastructure group as such,
but there are things that need to be discussed, like templates, change the bylaws (i.e., which public group?
The WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or general?)
, wiki info, etc.
This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for the infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed) but some can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how to deal with these matters.
Thanks for the info, Dimitris. You´re right. Everything´s crystal clear. Next time I will post in the right email.