[OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
Nat Sakimura
sakimura at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 01:27:30 UTC 2008
Thanks very much. This is what I wanted as the first step to go back to my
legal counsel.
Japan has gone into so called "Golden Week", a holiday week as of today,
and I am travelling to the U.S. for the OASIS Open conference, so please
expect about a week or so before the feedback.
Nat
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
wrote:
> A reply from David follows. Nat, please forward this to your lawyers and
> I expect that they should be satisfied. If not, can you please have them
> point out specific text in the IPR documents that can be construed to mean
> that a contributor is contributing IPR to specs other than those produced by
> the working groups that they join?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>
> Bill, the concept that the Patent Promise and the Copyright license are
> limited to Work Group members is embodied throughout the IPR Policy, and it
> would be difficult to construe the document, as a whole, otherwise. In
> particular:
>
>
>
> 1.) A "Contributor" is defined with regard to a particular WG.
>
>
>
> 2.) A "Contribution" is limited to communications related to a WG (note
> that one does not get access to a Specification Mailing List without joining
> the applicable WG).
>
>
>
> 3.) "Necessary Claims" are applicable to what a *Contributor* has
> rights to, and whether a given entity is a Contributor is judged on a WG by
> WG basis, as above.
>
>
>
> 4.) The Copyright license is limited to "Contributions" (which only a
> Contributor can make).
>
>
>
> 5.) Were the intent of the document for the Patent Promise to apply on
> other than a WG by WG basis, the withdrawal language would make no sense (as
> it speaks of withdrawal from a given WG, not from the "obligations to OIDF"
> or something more general).
>
>
>
> This issue was already addressed in Point #6 in the rationale doc. If we
> need further clarification, rather than updating the IPR Policy, which could
> disrupt the ecosystem, perhaps we could add a further clarifying sentence to
> an update of the rationale document (which probably needs to be updated in
> any case, as it still refers to the state in time before the IPR Policy and
> Process Doc were adopted).
>
>
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2008 8:57 AM
> *To:* Nat Sakimura; board at openid.net
> *Cc:* Bill Washburn
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
>
>
>
> I've sent a note to David Daggett, the lawyer who drafted our IPR
> documents, asking about this.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2008 5:40 AM
> *To:* board at openid.net
> *Cc:* Mike Jones
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
>
>
>
> *Here is the proposed addition that I sent. *
>
>
>
> *Before addition: *
>
>
>
> Contributor ("*I*" or "*me*") hereby irrevocably promises not to assert
> any Necessary Claims against any other entity ("*you*") for making, using,
> selling, offering for sale, importing, or distributing any Implementation or
> offering any product or service to the extent it contains or uses a
> Compliant Portion subject to the following. This is a personal promise
> directly from me to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting
> from it that no rights from me are received from me for your suppliers,
> distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise.
>
>
>
> *After addition: *
>
>
>
> Contributor ("*I*" or "*me*") hereby irrevocably promises not to assert
> any Necessary Claims against any other entity ("*you*") for making, using,
> selling, offering for sale, importing, or distributing any Implementation or
> offering any product or service to the extent it contains or uses a
> Compliant Portion provided that such Compliant Portions are compliant with
> all relevant portions of Implementers Drafts or Final Specifications created
> by the Working Groups in which Contributor is joining, subject to the
> following. This is a personal promise directly from me to you, and you
> acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no rights from me are
> received from me for your suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in
> connection with this promise.
>
>
>
> *I appreciate very much of your response to it**.*
>
>
>
> =nat
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mike.
>
> Actually, there is only one point in the IPR contribution agreement that
> is making my process on halt. After a careful study, to me, it became
> apparent that the non-assertion is only for the WGs that we join, but my
> legal dept. wants it clarified explicitly by adding such a sentence. (I
> have sent their draft couple of weeks ago to Bill.)
>
> =nat
>
>
> Mike Jones wrote:
>
> > I'll be glad to have you on board! All you'll have to do is have NRI
> submit the IPR contribution agreement once the working group is approved
> (and join OIDF if you haven't yet) and then you'll be a member of the
> working group.
> >
> > If there are specific questions about IPR process that you have I'd be
> glad to try to answer them for you as one of the authors of the doc.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > -- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:03 PM
> > To: board at openid.net
> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
> >
> > That's great.
> >
> > I actually want to join the PAPE WG as well. Only the issue is that the
> > IPR process doc is rather hard to read especially for foreginers and am
> > having some trouble with my legal department...
> >
> > =nat
> >
> > Mike Jones wrote:
> >
> >> And I'll commit to chronicling the issues and confusions that arise
> >> during the PAPE spec process as input to this doc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As you know, I'm starting the PAPE working group for two reasons (1) to
> >> finish a spec that I believe is important, and also (2) to debug the
> >> OpenID specification process. J
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> -- Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] *On
> >> Behalf Of *Bill Washburn
> >> *Sent:* Friday, April 25, 2008 11:19 PM
> >> *To:* board at openid.net
> >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Thanks Drummond for asking about this. Obviously it will be valuable
> to
> >> get this done and I recall the Board expressed the determination to
> make
> >> this happen in the first part of 2008. I will certainly be the
> >> coordinator, editor, facilitator and such.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> -bill
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net>
> >> To: board at openid.net
> >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:18:51 PM
> >> Subject: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
> >>
> >> On our http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page, it
> says:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "We are committed to provide "common language" summaries of
> >> our legal documents soon and anyone who has an interest in helping make
> >> this happen, please send email to Bill Washburn (bill at oidf.org).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In working through the setup of the PAPE working group, we got a clear
> >> picture of how badly this is needed. While it's possibly for an insider
> >> like Mike to decode the magic ring to figure out how a working group
> >> needs to set up and operate, to an average OpenID developer that wants
> >> to propose/pursue a new spec, it would be a huge uphill climb (let
> alone
> >> someone on the outside looking in just wanting to understand the OpenID
> >> IPR process).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> After Ben Laurie of Google, one of the proposers of the proposed PAPE
> >> working group, pointed this out to Mike and the rest of the proposers,
> >> it seemed it would be a good use of resources – and our stewardship of
> >> IPR for the OpenID community – to hire a writer to organize our IPR
> >> docs and create a simple, plain-English description of the process that
> >> anyone interested in working group could follow. One thought might be
> >> for he/she to do this on the OpenID.net <http://OpenID.net> wiki so
> that
> >> we can continue to add notes about best practices and pitfalls to
> avoid.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What do folks think of this? If there is a sentiment to do it, the next
> >> step might be for Bill to coordinate a requirements list (it should
> only
> >> be a half-page of bullet points – I'd be happy to help with it), and
> >> then get some quotes from qualified writers as Dick did for the
> >> marketing work (only this is a much smaller job).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =Drummond
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> *From:* billhwashburn at gmail.com [mailto:billhwashburn at gmail.com] *On
> >> Behalf Of *Bill Washburn
> >> *Sent:* Friday, April 25, 2008 9:59 AM
> >> *To:* Drummond Reed
> >> *Subject:* Re: FW: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG
> process
> >>
> >> n Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Drummond Reed
> >> <drummond.reed at cordance.net <mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> One more thought -- Mike and I both thought it be worth hiring a writer
> >> (unless you want to tackle it) to write up a short, plain-English
> >> summary of the OpenID IPR process (and a FAQ) and put it on (or link it
> >> prominently to) the http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/
> >> page so that we all have someplace to point folks to when they ask how
> >> it works.
> >>
> >> After all, shepherding OpenID IPR is one of our main jobs.
> >>
> >> Will you add this to the task list? I'm happy to make a motion that the
> >> board authorize a small amount to pay a writer to do this.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> =Drummond
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
> >> <mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:50 PM
> >> To: Drummond Reed
> >> Subject: RE: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process
> >>
> >> It's at http://openid.net/ipr/ in the process document there. I don't
> >> know why there's not a link to it and the ipr policy doc from the
> >> http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page. Can you send
> >> Bill a note cc'ing the board asking that that be fixed?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -- Mike
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net
> >> <mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net>]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:47 PM
> >> To: Mike Jones
> >> Subject: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process
> >>
> >> Mike,
> >>
> >> Just a note that I think Ben's right -- as best I can tell (from what I
> >> looked over), there's no documentation of the OpenID workgroup process.
> >>
> >> Is this the kind of thing we should ask Bill to do? Or at least to
> >> contract out? (This is the kind of thing I know Charles could do for
> >> ICF, but Bill has a different skillset...)
> >>
> >> One good writer for the OIDF website would go a loooong ways...
> >>
> >> =Drummond
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl at google.com <mailto:benl at google.com>]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:25 PM
> >> To: Drummond Reed
> >> Cc: David Recordon; Mike Jones; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu; Jonathan
> >> Daugherty
> >> Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE working group
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Drummond Reed
> >> <drummond.reed at cordance.net <mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net>> wrote:
> >> > Yes, Ben, it's documented in the OpenID Foundation IPR docs at
> >> http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/. It could be better
> >> organized, but the OIDF is working on that.
> >>
> >> AFAICS that page does not document the WG process.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > =Drummond
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl at google.com <mailto:benl at google.com
> >]
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:04 AM
> >> > > To: David Recordon
> >> > > Cc: Mike Jones; Drummond Reed; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu;
> Jonathan
> >> > > Daugherty
> >> > > Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE working
> >> group
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, David Recordon
> >> <drecordon at sixapart.com <mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com>>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > You're a part of the Foundation, but Google will have to choose
> >> to join
> >> > > the
> >> > > > working group.
> >> > >
> >> > > Err ... ok ... Google chooses to join the working group.
> >> > >
> >> > > BTW, is any of this documented anywhere?
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Apr 24, 2008, at 5:00 AM, "Ben Laurie" <benl at google.com
> >> <mailto:benl at google.com>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Mike Jones
> >> > > <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com <mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
> >>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Good point about making it clear what we're asking people
> to do.
> >> > > I've
> >> > > > > > already asked them to join OIDF and to consider joining the
> >> working
> >> > > > group
> >> > > > > > once it's up and running.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Am I already joined by virtue of being at google?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > What I forgot to do was tell them when and how
> >> > > > > > the vote will occur. I propose to do so by adding this
> >> sentence to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > end
> >> > > > > > of the message:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > "After the Specifications Council has responded to this
> >> request to
> >> > > > create a
> >> > > > > > working group (which must happen within 15 days) a separate
> >> message
> >> > > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > sent asking those of you who are OpenID members to vote on
> the
> >> > > working
> >> > > > group
> >> > > > > > creation, containing instructions for how to do so."
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Sound good?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -- Mike
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ________________________________
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > From: David Recordon [mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com
> >> <mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com>]
> >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:41 PM
> >> > > > > > To: Mike Jones
> >> > > > > > Cc: Ben Laurie; Drummond Reed; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu;
> >> Jonathan
> >> > > > > > Daugherty
> >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE
> >> working
> >> > > group
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Looks fine to me. The one thing I see missing is what
> we're
> >> asking
> >> > > > people
> >> > > > > > to do. Should we just have people reply with a +1 and we
> >> can deal
> >> > > with
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > actual counting of the votes re:membership orthogonally? I
> >> think
> >> > > that
> >> > > > might
> >> > > > > > be the easiest.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --David
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > To those of you on the to: line -- thanks for agreeing to
> >> serve on
> >> > > the
> >> > > > PAPE
> >> > > > > > working group with me to finish making the PAPE draft an
> OpenID
> >> > > > > > specification. Below is the note I propose to send to
> >> > > specs at openid.net <mailto:specs at openid.net>
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > initiate the creation of the working group. Please suggest
> any
> >> > > edits
> >> > > > you'd
> >> > > > > > like or send an ack that you're OK with it as-is.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Johnny and Jonathan, as authors of the existing PAPE spec,
> >> I'd also
> >> > > like
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > invite you to join and contribute to the working group. If
> you
> >> > > would
> >> > > > like
> >> > > > > > to be listed as proposers of the working group please let
> me
> >> know
> >> > > and
> >> > > > I'll
> >> > > > > > gladly also add you. And if any of you would crave the
> >> opportunity
> >> > > to
> >> > > > be an
> >> > > > > > editor of the specification I can add you to that list too.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> Thanks
> >> > > > all,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> --
> >> > > Mike
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > To: specs at openid.net <mailto:specs at openid.net>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Subject: Proposal to create the PAPE working group
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and
> >> procedures
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > note proposes the formation of a new working group
> chartered to
> >> > > produce
> >> > > > an
> >> > > > > > OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the Policies,
> the
> >> > > specifics
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > the proposed working group are:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Proposal:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (a) Charter.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (i) WG name: Provider Authentication Policy
> >> > > Extension
> >> > > > > > (PAPE)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (ii) Purpose: Produce a standard OpenID
> >> extension to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > OpenID Authentication protocol that: provides a mechanism
> >> by which
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > Relying Party can request that particular authentication
> >> policies be
> >> > > > applied
> >> > > > > > by the OpenID Provider when authenticating an End User and
> >> provides
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > mechanism by which an OpenID Provider may inform a Relying
> Party
> >> > > which
> >> > > > > > authentication policies were used. Thus a Relying Party can
> >> request
> >> > > that
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > End User authenticate, for example, using a
> phishing-resistant
> >> > > and/or
> >> > > > > > multi-factor authentication method.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (iii) Scope: Produce a revision of the PAPE
> 1.0
> >> > > Draft 2
> >> > > > > > specification that clarifies its intent, while maintaining
> >> > > compatibility
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > existing Draft 2 implementations. Adding any support for
> >> > > communicating
> >> > > > > > requests for or the use of specific authentication methods
> (as
> >> > > opposed
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > authentication policies) is explicitly out of scope.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (iv) Proposed List of Specifications:
> Provider
> >> > > > > > Authentication Policy Extension 1.0, spec completion
> >> expected during
> >> > > May
> >> > > > > > 2008.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (v) Anticipated audience or users of the
> work:
> >> > > > > > Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying Parties –
> >> especially
> >> > > those
> >> > > > > > interested in mitigating the phishing vulnerabilities of
> logging
> >> > > into
> >> > > > OpenID
> >> > > > > > providers with passwords.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (vi) Language in which the WG will conduct
> >> business:
> >> > > > > > English.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (vii) Method of work: E-mail discussions on
> the
> >> > > working
> >> > > > > > group mailing list, working group conference calls, and
> >> possibly a
> >> > > > > > face-to-face meeting at the Internet Identity Workshop.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (viii) Basis for determining when the work
> of
> >> the WG
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > completed: Proposed changes to draft 2 will be evaluated
> on the
> >> > > basis
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > whether they increase or decrease consensus within the
> working
> >> > > group.
> >> > > > The
> >> > > > > > work will be completed once it is apparent that maximal
> >> consensus on
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > draft has been achieved, consistent with the purpose and
> scope.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (b) Background Information.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (i) Related work being done in other WGs or
> >> > > > organizations:
> >> > > > > > (1) Assurance Levels as defined by the National Institute
> of
> >> > > Standards
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > Technology (NIST) in Special Publication 800-63 (Burr, W.,
> >> Dodson,
> >> > > D.,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > W. Polk, Ed., "Electronic Authentication Guideline," April
> >> 2006.)
> >> > > > > > [NIST_SP800‑63]. This working group is needed to enable
> >> > > authentication
> >> > > > > > policy statements to be exchanged by OpenID endpoints. No
> >> > > coordination
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > needed with NIST, as the PAPE specification uses elements
> of the
> >> > > NIST
> >> > > > > > specification in the intended fashion.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (ii) Proposers:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Michael B. Jones,
> >> mbj at microsoft.com <mailto:mbj at microsoft.com>,
> >> > > > > > Microsoft Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > David Recordon,
> >> > > drecordon at sixapart.com <mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com>,
> >> > > > Six
> >> > > > > > Apart Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ben Laurie, benl at google.com
> >> <mailto:benl at google.com>, Google
> >> > > > > > Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Drummond Reed,
> >> > > drummond.reed at cordance.net <mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net>,
> >> > > > > > Cordance Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > John Bradley,
> >> john.bradley at wingaa.com <mailto:john.bradley at wingaa.com>,
> >> > > > > > Wingaa Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Editors:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Michael B. Jones,
> >> mbj at microsoft.com <mailto:mbj at microsoft.com>,
> >> > > > > > Microsoft Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > David Recordon,
> >> > > drecordon at sixapart.com <mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com>,
> >> > > > Six
> >> > > > > > Apart Corporation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (iii) Anticipated Contributions: None.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ====
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > (The rest of this note is informational and not part of the
> >> proposal
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > create an OpenID working group.)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Given that the OpenID specification procedures call for
> >> votes of the
> >> > > > > > membership, this would be a good time for those wanting to
> >> influence
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > outcome of this specification to join the OpenID
> Foundation.
> >> You
> >> > > can do
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > at http://openid.net/foundation/join/. Should you wish to
> >> join the
> >> > > > working
> >> > > > > > group, you will also need to execute one of the
> Contribution
> >> > > Agreements
> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ once
> the
> >> working
> >> > > > group
> >> > > > > > formation has been approved by the membership.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > board mailing list
> > board at openid.net
> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20080429/b1d322a6/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the board
mailing list