[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and Official Version of the Bylaws

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 1:36 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>
wrote:

> As I said in my first post, I just happened to re-read section 5.5 and in
> combination with other legal documents I went through, I thought it would
> be an improvement to the Bylaws. Again, let me repeat that I did not
> propose automatic IPR encumbrance but the same review as today. If 90 days
> of review is what we consider reasonable, then change the 14 days of my
> proposal to 90 days and you have the same "effective" result. Certificate
> Consumers will have the same time to review the new IPR Policy but instead
> of providing a "positive" response by re-signing the new IPR agreement
> (times all the Members, plus the administrative overhead), you will have a
> "negative" response by participants who oppose or have concerns with the
> new "voted" IPR Policy.
>

As most firms will tell you, such a form of governance penalizes IPR
holders for limited-to-no benefit. It makes participation incredibly risky,
and the best way to manage that risk is not participate at all.

This is explicitly why Google voted against the introduction of the Code
Signing WG. This isn't new discussion - it's literally why we started the
governance reform efforts, as a way to minimize the risk of new IP
encumbrances to ensure that members explicitly - positively - indicate
participation. This is true of WG participation and, similarly, with IP
policies.

I appreciate the desire for harmony, but this isn't accidental - it's been
an intentional design through multiple years of discussions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180904/5209f4fe/attachment-0001.html>