[OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 12:39:32 UTC 2008


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
createdby 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20080428/2535e2c7/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list