<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">You are absolutely right, Virginia. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">However, I think any CA that assumes a guideline change will happen and actually implements it
<b><i>before</i></b> the change is finally approved (by expiration of a Review Period with no Exclusion Notices) is being foolish… I guess the temptation will be there because we are adding an extra 30 day waiting period before CAs know that a successful straw
vote is actually the final vote of approval.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">But I’m guessing we will not get Exclusion Notices in 95%+ of ballots, so it’s probably worth eliminating the need for a second vote for approval after the expiration of the Review Period where no Exclusion Notices were filed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: vfournier@apple.com [mailto:vfournier@apple.com] <br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 10:50 AM<br>
To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall@entrust.com><br>
Cc: public@cabforum.org<br>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 54, Issue 2</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Gerv and Kirk,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This approach would not, however, eliminate the risk of IPR issues associated with implementing guidelines before the review period is closed without any Exclusion Notices being filed. Each member would need to consult with their own
counsel to determine how comfortable they are with assuming that risk.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Virginia Fournier<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Senior Standards Counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Apple Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif">☏</span> 669-227-9595<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif">✉</span>︎
<a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">vmf@apple.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gerv@mozilla.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 11/10/16 23:48, Kirk Hall wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Of course, the straw poll is like a real vote today, in that people
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> are voting before they know whether or not there will be any Exclusion
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Notices. I suppose we could say the straw poll automatically becomes
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> the real vote if (and only if) there are no Exclusion Notices filed
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> during the subsequent 30/60 day Review period<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> - that would cut the minimum time period from 51 days to 44 days. If
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> any Exclusion Notices are filed, the straw vote is discarded and we go
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> to a PAG, new discussion and straw vote, new Review Period, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">That's a great idea; but then I would think so, because it basically has the same effect as what I proposed ;-)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gerv<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>