[cabf_governance] Late change request to IPR Policy - Proposed change to definition of "Affiliates"

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi Dean,

All good questions.

I think the member would do it in a subsequent ballot if we say we can’t do it now.  But they’d clearly prefer to do it now.  I don’t think they’ll vote no.  The member has asked me to keep their identity confidential for now.

I don’t know why the IPR Policy refers to a Board of Directors - good catch!  We would need to change it to something like the Chair and Vice Chair of the Forum, or the Forum voting on the Forum level.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>






On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com> wrote:

What’s your feeling on this member’s propensity to do this change later on vs. now? Does it mean they will vote no if we don’t change it? And is it a browser or a CA that made the suggestion?
 
Also, who are the Board of Directors?
  <>
From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Govreform
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:06 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <Govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabf_governance] Late change request to IPR Policy - Proposed change to definition of "Affiliates"
 
Hello all,
 
We have a last minute request from a Forum member to make a change to the definition of “Affiliate” in the IPR Policy.  We previously took out the following language, and the member would like to have something similar put back in.
 
"The CAB Forum Board of Directors may, in its discretion, grant exclusions for related companies of CAB Forum Members which would technically fall within the “Affiliate” definition in situations where it can be shown that there is no intent to circumvent the licensing obligations of Section 5.”


We changed this definition of “Affiliate” to match the one in the Bylaws, which did not have the exclusion language above.  Please let me know your thoughts on making such a change this late in the game, vs. making this change along with some other items on the list of deferred issues after Ballot 206 (hopefully) passes?
 
If we make the requested change, we would likely have to restart the informal discussion period, formal discussion period, and voting period timetable, meaning the process would be delayed further.  When other members see that a last minute change was accommodated, more changes could be requested, creating further delays.


Best regards,
 
Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180322/1797f095/attachment-0001.html>