[cabf_governance] Changes to IPRA in Ballot 206
vfournier at apple.com
Thu Jan 18 16:26:52 MST 2018
There is already an amendment to the IPR Policy with Ballot 206, so we can fix this now. We’ve newly added the definition of “Participant” in the proposed Amendment, and it already includes “Interested Parties.” Please see the proposed definition below:
j. “Participant” means a Member who is participating in one or more Working Groups of the CAB Forum, together with its Affiliates. Interested Parties and Associate Members may be considered “Participants” for purposes of Working Group participation, but they do not gain any CAB Forum membership privileges thereby.
I think the last part about “CAB Forum membership privileges” could be more clear. I believe what we were thinking is that Interested Parties might have voting rights in a Working Group, but not at the Forum level.
Please let me know if this addresses your concern.
Senior Standards Counsel
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
On Jan 15, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Kirk Hall via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:
Based on the discussion last week, it seems pretty clear to me that Interested Parties (whether individuals or entities) are NOT bound by signing our IPRA because under the IPRA only “Participants” are bound, and Participants are defined as “entities” who are “Members” of the Forum.
I think maybe we can fix this simply be changing the definition of Participants. Are you open to including this change in Ballot 206? I only ask this because it’s a major big deal to make changes to the IPRA and get people to re-sign the individual forms….
If not in Ballot 206, can do a parallel ballot so the IPRA changes occur at the same time, and only one re-signing is needed?
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Govreform