[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and Official Version of the Bylaws

Tue Sep 4 07:58:57 MST 2018

Could you explain the problem you're trying to solve?

Having an automatic implementation of IPR policy changes is a non-goal.

The Bylaws do not require re-signing an IPR agreement unless the IPR
agreement changes.

In short, this seems like an "optimization" that was explicitly trying to
be avoided.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:14 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Govreform <
govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:

>
> I just happened to review some legal documents related to Subscriber
> Agreements and while I was reading section 5.5 about IPR policies and the
> need to re-sign in case of amendments, I believe there must be a better way
> to handle modifications than the current practice.
>
> Here is a sample language that could be incorporated in section 5.5 of the
> Bylaws or in a new section.
>
> --- BEGIN ---
> Modifications to IPR Policy The Forum may revise the IPR Policy from time
> to time. Any such change shall be notified to the Members, Associate
> Members and Interested Parties by any convenient way and in any case, shall
> be binding and effective fourteen (14) days after publication of the
> changes in the IPR Policy, or upon notification to the Members, Associate
> Members and Interested Parties by e-mail. If the Members, Associate Members
> and Interested Parties do not raise concerns or oppose to the provisions of
> the updated IPR Policy within fourteen (14) days after publication of the
> new IPR Policy, the Forum will treat such use by the Member, Associate
> Member or Interested Party as acceptance of the updated IPR Policy.
>
> If a Member raises concerns or opposes to the provisions of the new IPR
> Policy within the fourteen (14) days period, then the Member’s  Forum
> membership shall default to an Associate Membership until the new IPR
> agreement is explicitly signed and returned by the Member.
>
> If an Associate Member or Interested Party raises concerns or opposes to
> the provisions of the new IPR Policy within the fourteen (14) days period,
> then its participation in Forum calls, meetings, activities, and events
> shall be suspended until the agreement is explicitly signed and returned.
>
> --- END ---
>
> Some of this language could be made more explicit, for example the form of
> notification to Members, Associate Members and Interested Parties. Would an
> e-mail to the management list suffice? Perhaps a personal e-mail from the
> Forum Chair to each participant would be a better solution.
>
> The current Bylaws have a 90-day window for Participants to sign and
> return the update IPR Policies. If this is the agreed "reasonable" time to
> review amendments to an existing document, then we should change the 14
> days to 90.
>
> Of course, the language needs to be reviewed and tweaked by legal folks
> but we should be able to come up with the proper words to avoid the
> re-signing part. Of course each Member will still have time to review and
> raise concerns or objections to any updates.
>
> Thoughts?
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
> On 4/9/2018 7:39 πμ, Ben Wilson via Govreform wrote:
>
> Here is the redlined differences between the attachment to Ballot 206 and
> the 4APR18 version on the website.
>
>
>
> *From:* Govreform <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org>
> <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ben Wilson via Govreform
> *Sent:* Monday, September 3, 2018 4:33 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
> <govreform at cabforum.org>; Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
> <vfournier at apple.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and Official Version of the
> Bylaws
>
>
>
> I'm away from my laptop until later tonight.  I'll send it then.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* vfournier at apple.com <vfournier at apple.com> on behalf of Virginia
> Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 3, 2018 12:04:37 PM
> *To:* Ben Wilson; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and Official Version of the
> Bylaws
>
>
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> I’d like to see what those changes are before making a choice.  I remember
> having to create a version 1.8 of the Bylaws before I could create a
> version 1.9, so I’m not sure what would be missing.  Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Virginia Fournier
>
> Senior Standards Counsel
>
>  Apple Inc.
>
> ☏ 669-227-9595
>
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Ben Wilson via Govreform <
> govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gov Reform WG,
>
>
>
> Today I was going through the Bylaws on GitHub to update them from version
> 1.7 to version 1.9 (to match changes by Ballot 216 (v.1.8) and Ballot 206
> (v.1.9).  As Wayne mentioned during the Validation WG call, Ballot 206
> inadvertently removed some changes made by Ballot 216.  We’ll have to
> figure out how to remedy this, but most likely with a ballot.
>
>
>
> Also during this process, I think I noticed discrepancies between what was
> on GitHub and what we have on the website.  For instance, the version on
> the website uses the term “CWG” but the one on GitHub uses “Working
> Group”.  Also, I think that some of the changes made in section 2.3(c),
> 2.4(b) and 2.4(c) by Ballot 216 are preserved in the GitHub version, but
> removed in the website version.
>
>
>
> I’ve reviewed the different versions of the Bylaws v. 20Feb2018, v.
> 20MAR18, and 4APR18, and it appears that the changes happened in between
> the 20-Feb version and the 4-Apr version.
>
>
>
> Here are some solutions to the inconsistencies:
>
>
>
> 1 - just update GitHub with the April 4th version, which we’ve all been
> using and which is the one on the Website.
>
> 2 - use the current GitHub version (which is based on the March 20
> version), and revert the CABF Website version 1.9 to what was in the March
> 20th version (and then have a ballot that bring is up to the April 4
> version).
>
>
>
> Under either approach, there are other changes that we’d need to do to fix
> some of the missing Ballot 216 language and re-insert it.  And there are a
> few other changes we could make with a ballot, like a few cross references
> that need to be fixed and a replacement of the ETSI audit reference with
> “ETSI EN 319 401”.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing listGovreform at cabforum.orghttps://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180904/9782d3a2/attachment.html>