<wseltzer> PAG Charter

<scribe> scribe: Chaals

Introductions.

@@

Rechartering as Member-confidential group

WS: I propose we take advantage of the Process allowing us to recharter in member-confidential mode.
... It seems that for frank discussion, members are far more comfortable with a member-confidential status, so it makes us more productive.

SP: The topic potenitally involves specific legal disputes, and the nature of communication around that is really difficultif it is immediately laid completely open.
... For a US corporation it is extremely difficult to have a free conversation at all, let alone directly on the public record

GC: If there is a claim and the person who asserts the claim can read the minutes it makes it hard for people to agree to speak

CMN: The expectation is that all members of the WG - including the excluding party that gives rise to a PAG - will participate. Will that be the case for Aymeric given that he is (or at least was) an invited expert?

WS: I don't have any expectation, PAG can invite him.

SP: My sense is that it is premature to conclude whether we would find it helpful to have him in the discussion.

<chaals1> [A curse on Spanish network providers, all of whom are apparently unable to provide reliable service]

<chaals1> [and another curse on webex]

<chaals1> rragent, make log public

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-composition

<chaals1> CMN: I am happy that we request member-confidential status. I agree it would give freer representation.

<chaals1> … The clear expectation I have from the Patent Policy is that an excluding member would be a participant.

<chaals1> … Although the history as I recall it is that Apple excludes and then fails to ever turn up.

<chaals1> WS: If he is not a member then we have to ask the director to invite him

<chaals1> SP: If he isn't in the group, there is no reason to invite him.

<chaals1> GC: If he wants to be in the group he has to exclude. It makes sense that he may be invited

RESOLUTION: Group re-charters to work in Member confidentiality

<scottp> Whether to invite discussion with the patent owner: should be considered in the future.

RESOLUTION: We will request a new charter that enables us to work in member-confidential space

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/wcpag

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/web-component-pag-charter.html

PAG process

WS: Charter is produced according to W3C Patent Policy
... to help reach the goal of a Recommendation that can be implemented Royalty-Free, and PAGs are inviked if there is a patent asserted to coveer essential claims for impleenting a Recommendation.
... At this stage nobody has made any agreement or judgement about whether the patent does indeed bear on our specifications, just noted that someone asserts that their patent does so.

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/web-component-pag-charter.html#scope

WS: in particular on the work on Web Components now done within the Web Platform.
... per patent policy we have a handful of options - explore getting an RF commitment, explore the existence of prior art that makes people comfortable the patent would be invalidated in a court, design to ensure that whatever is patented is not an essential claim, drop the work, ...

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/web-component-pag-charter.html#deliverables

WS: We are chartered for a year to start, we are obliged to report in line with the requirements of the charter, participation is expected from each WG member's AC rep and/or legal representative appointed, and others selected by the team.

<wseltzer> Patent Policy

Scheduling ongoing work

<wseltzer> ACTION: wseltzer to take recharter request to W3M [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/08-wc-pag-minutes.html#action01]

WS: I'll take the charter proposal to W3M. Anyone I should be reaching out to?

SP: As usual it is frustrating that many of those meant to turn up, don't.

GC: Looking at the list, we have some but are missing some members

How do we handle the fact that we're discussing a document written in french?

CMN: Yes, but some members are very small and have no lawyer anyway. In addition it is a pretty big ask for chinese members to turn up at something like midnight for a call that is not in their native language.

The Patent is in French. So…

WS: We have a few possibilities. One of our staff counsel speaks French, and could help us understand whether translation is useful, how to work through the claims in comparison to a US patent, …
... does the patent even cover the spec? We don't know.

LJW: Without a translation it is going to be pretty difficult to meaningfully discuss this without a translation.

WS: Yes. I think we should look to get an english translation.

KHS: I'd like to know more about the history, but that might make more sense after rechartering.

WS: Thank you all for joining the discussion.

[adjourned]