[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and Official Version of the Bylaws

Dimitris Zacharopoulos jimmy at it.auth.gr
Tue Sep 4 09:17:27 MST 2018



On 4/9/2018 5:58 μμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Could you explain the problem you're trying to solve?
>

Not having all members sign a document for which they all agreed and 
voted for. Just like we do with the Bylaws. It creates administrative 
overhead (pinging representatives, sending reminders) for a case where 
100% of the previous times, members agreed with the changes.

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

It is not an automatic implementation of IPR policy changes. All members 
will be notified of the changes (that they have already agreed and voted 
on) and if they still disagree, they have a certain time to declare 
that. The result will be exactly as the one we have in today's Bylaws 
(Members --> Associate Members and Associate Members/Independent Parties 
--> Suspend).

Banks and other legal organizations for which there are contracts, 
agreements and terms of use, have a process like this. I don't think the 
IPR policy, as a legal document, is any different. Of course, I could be 
wrong and I would like our legal experts to be able to provide some 
insight about this.


Thanks,
Dimitris.

>
> 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 <mailto: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>
>>     <mailto: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> <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>;
>>     Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:vfournier at apple.com>
>>     <vfournier at apple.com <mailto:vfournier at apple.com>> on behalf of
>>     Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com <mailto: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 <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>>
>>     On Sep 1, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Ben Wilson via Govreform
>>     <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto: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 4^th 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 20^th 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 <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
>>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Govreform mailing list
>>     Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
>>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Govreform mailing list
>     Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180904/860ca0af/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Govreform mailing list