<div dir="ltr">Virginia,<div><br></div><div>Normally we try to have discussion on the list prior to the call, as otherwise the calls end up being presentation of details without context.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps it would be useful, prior to this call, to put forward the discussion of proposals on the list: to be aware of what specific proposals exist, so that we can have a productive and meaningful call.</div><div><br></div><div>As to the second point, we continue to go around in circles on this, so it does seem like a far more productive discussion can be held if we look for a way forward here. Otherwise, we could easily end up spending all of our time debating whether or not any of the previous IP Review Notices ( <a href="https://cabforum.org/category/governance/ipr/">https://cabforum.org/category/governance/ipr/</a> ) from the prior chair were valid. Alternatively, we could end up discussing how a previous chair created a WG without following the bylaws (The Code Signing "WG"), which created a Draft with significant IPR concerns, did not produce any minutes for this WG, and then put forward that Draft for voting (Ballot 158), which a number of members voted "No" on precisely because of those IP concerns - and prior to doing a Forum-wide IP review.</div><div><br></div><div>As such, it seems like, in the lead-up to such a call, members concretely propose steps forward, such as Peter has done here, so that counsel can review before the call, and then we can have a productive and meaningful discussion on the call. Otherwise, I fear we will both get nothing accomplished on the call and only contribute more to the inability of the Forum to move forward.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Peter,<br>
<br>
There are other proposals as well. To avoid confusion, I suggest we save all of them until we have the IP task force meeting so we can consolidate them. I’ve found that discussing the ballot process proposals on the list has not been very productive due to (1) conflating the issues of validating all of the existing guidelines now and settling on a workable process going forward, and (2) misinterpretation of the current legal documents.<br>
<br>
Thanks for taking the time to put this proposal together, and for helping with this challenging process.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Virginia Fournier<br>
Senior Standards Counsel<br>
Apple Inc.<br>
☏ <a href="tel:669-227-9595" value="+16692279595">669-227-9595</a><br>
✉︎ <a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com">vmf@apple.com</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Nov 17, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Peter Bowen <<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com">pzb@amzn.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Virginia,<br>
<br>
I have invited our counsel to attend. The invite Kirk sent is about two weeks away. I was hoping we could discuss this proposal on the list rather than wait until then.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This can be discussed at the IP task force meeting. Peter, I hope you will invite your counsel to attend as well.<br>
><br>
> Virginia<br>
><br>
><br>
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:52:09 -0800<br>
> From: Peter Bowen <<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com">pzb@amzn.com</a>><br>
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
> Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:59366543-D71A-411B-A0EE-0B65CAE312E1@amzn.com">59366543-D71A-411B-A0EE-<wbr>0B65CAE312E1@amzn.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
><br>
> Dear CA/Browser Forum colleagues,<br>
><br>
> We have heard a number of concerns about the processes we have been using for ballots and how those processes interact with our IPR policy over the last few weeks. It has been raised that we don't have a clearly spelled out process. I've also heard members raise that they don't want to vote to approve something that could end up being adopted with exclusion notices applying.<br>
><br>
> Therefore, Amazon proposes to modify our bylaws to reflect that the chair is responsible for approving Draft Guidelines to become Final Guidelines (FG) or Final Maintenance Guidelines (FMG). The chair may only approve by following the process below.<br>
><br>
> 1) A ballot among members of the Forum must approve a motion to initiate the adoption process.<br>
> - The ballot may be withdrawn during the review period<br>
> - The ballot may receive small corrections during the review period<br>
> - The ballot must indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline (FG) or Final Maintenance Guideline (FMG)<br>
> - The ballot must include either:<br>
> a) the full text of a Draft Guideline proposed to become a FG or FMG, or<br>
> b) a set of changes relative to an existing approved FG or FMG<br>
><br>
> 2) Within two business days of the announcement of the results of the ballot, if the ballot is valid and is adopted, the Chair shall initiate the Review Period described in the IPR policy. The review period will be initiated by sending notice to both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List. The notice shall include the full text of the Draft Guideline. If the ballot contained a set of changes relative to an existing FG or FMG, the Draft Guideline is formed by applying the changes to the existing approved FG or FMG.<br>
><br>
> 3) At the end of the Review Period (either 30 or 60 calendar days), the Chair shall determine if any Exclusion Notices were received. If no exclusion notices were received, the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify the Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site list of FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline. If exclusion notices were received, the Chair shall not approve adoption of the Draft Guideline, and shall notify the Public Mail List of the disapproval.<br>
><br>
> This process ensures that there will never be a case where any member is voting on a guideline that will be adopted with exclusion notices. It also optimizes to move voting early in the process so that the vast majority of ballots will pass and move to adoption at the end of the review period with no further action, based on the observed set of exclusion notices received upon adoption of IPR policy v1.2.<br>
><br>
> I believe that adopting this process will only require modifying the bylaws, which we can do via vote, rather than require modifying the IPR policy and getting new IPR agreements from all members.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Peter<br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Public mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>