<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" class="">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM, <a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com" class="">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a> <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com" target="_blank" class="">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" class="">
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><br class=""></p><p class=""><u class=""></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" class=""><span class="">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"" class="">
</span></span></span><u class=""></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" class="">The issue of whether and how to open up the Forum to more voices comes up often. I have said multiple times – I would not oppose, and might even favor, a new email
address where anyone in the world could post on issues before us – so long as someone volunteers to moderate the postings and exclude trolls, etc. And I would want to keep this list separate from the current management@ (which deals with logistics issues
among members) and separate from the public@ list (which I think requires signing the IPR and becoming an Associate Member to have posting rights). I think many of the blogging sites run by others suffer from too many postings from people with strong opinion
but who are not directly affected by the subject at hand, who sometimes drown out other voices, and I wouldn’t want that to happen with what we already have (which seems a pretty efficient method for us to do our business). But a third email address for an
open list that someone volunteers to moderate could be useful.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div class="">Interested Parties can participate on the list. That's the whole point of this concern about Associate Members vs Interested Parties - interested parties CAN fully participate on the list(s), as I pointed out earlier on the list, and was previously raised on the call. See the Bylaws v 1.4 and compare Sections 3.1 with 3.2</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">All of the rights are the same, with two notable exceptions:</div><div class="">1) Interested parties cannot see or participate the management@ list</div><div class="">2) Interested Parties can't just show up at meetings / on calls - they have to be invited by the Chair.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div style="widows: 1;">I would disagree with your assessment. I don’t see anything allowing an associate member to post to the public list or participate in working groups. This is reinforced by 5.2 "<span style="widows: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#333333" face="Droid Sans, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif" size="2" class=""><span style="line-height: 19.5px;" class="">Forum Members and Interested Parties may post to the Public Mail List in compliance with these Bylaws. Anyone else is allowed to subscribe to and receive messages posted to the Public Mail List”.</span></font></span></div><div style="widows: 1;"><br class=""></div><div style="widows: 1;"><font color="#333333" face="Droid Sans, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif" size="2" class=""><span style="line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">This is why Amazon requested to be admitted/recognized as both an Interested Party and Associate Member when submitting the signed IPR agreement. </span></font></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">I argue that 1 is a good thing; I think there is a bias towards wanting to conduct business in secret, especially as shown by the discussions of SHA-1, and I think that harms, rather than helps, the ecosystem. Full members today already struggle in making sure that substantive technical discussions happen on the correct (public) list and don't occur on the management@ list during the discussion of draft minutes.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And as I tried to explain in my previous message, 2 is also arguably a good thing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So if your concern is "Keep out Interested Parties" - that ship has already sailed. Anyone who wants to join as an Interested Party can. And we've already discussed (and accepted and acknowledged) that members can forward messages on behalf of the 'general public' to the public@ list.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Given that F2F meetings only happen three times a year and the management list is primarily used for administrative coordination, I am inclined to agree with Ryan. Other than non-member CAs, it would probably make the most sense to have entities become Interested Parties and have them speak up if they want to join the F2F meetings. We have already had concerns about space for F2F meetings, so it would seem that adding automatic attendees is only going to make this worse.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Peter</div></body></html>