[cabfpub] Tally of Results of Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope (Membership vs. Participation)

Ben Wilson ben at digicert.com
Fri Nov 16 08:50:47 MST 2012


I've added two late votes.  Also, there was a question about how the single
transferable vote is tallied.  The initial round tallies the first place
votes using COUNTIF=1.  Those who voted "1" for an option eliminated get
their vote transferred to their next option that was not eliminated, and the
votes are re-tallied.  Here it was pretty simple because we only had to
re-distribute 4 votes.  You'll note that the columns and rows balance out in
the lower left corner of the table where the rows all equal 23, the number
of those voting.

 

Also, someone commented that the reason they voted for "H" was because they
thought that any change to the IPR policy meant that some members would
decide not to sign and leave.  I don't see it that way.  I think the way
that the existing IPR has been implemented, we've focused too much on
equating it with "membership" (the IPR Policy should apply equally to
members and non-members alike--based on that entity's participation).
Participation was never defined in the existing IPR Policy, so that was one
of the reasons for why we are here now.  Under an IPR Policy focused more on
"participation" the question becomes, "of those who voted for "H" are there
any of you who would refuse to sign the IPR agreement or choose not to
participate if the IPR were changed in the way proposed?"   I doubt that
under the proposed framework that people would be so opposed that they would
choose not to.

 

I think it would be good to know the answer to the following questions from
those who voted for H as well as from those who did not vote.

 

Google, Certum, Chungwa, D-Trust, DanID, E-TUGRA, FPKI, GoDaddy, Japan Cert,
Kamu Sert, KEYNECTIS, KPN, NetSol, PayPal, SECOM, Swisscom, SwissSign,
t-Scheme, TWCA, etc., would you continue to participate if the IPR were
changed in the way proposed or would you refuse to sign the IPR agreement?

 

Digidentity, Izenpe, Logius, Microsoft, Mozilla, SSC, StartCom, Trend Micro,
and Trustwave, would you continue to participate if the IPR were changed in
the way proposed or would you refuse to sign the IPR agreement? 

 -


 

 

A

B

C

D

E

H

I


1

Apple

2

1

 

 

 

3

 


2

BuyPass

3

 

1

 

2

 

 


3

Comodo

 

 

1

 

 

 

2


4

DigiCert

 

3

2

5

4

 

1


5

Digidentity

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


6

Entrust

 

 

2

1

 

 

 


7

Globalsign

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


8

Identrust

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


9

Izenpe

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


10

Logius

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


11

Microsoft

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


12

Mozilla

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


13

Opera

 

 

1

 

2

 

 


14

Quovadis

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


15

RSA

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


16

SSC

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


17

StarCom

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


18

Symantec

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


19

Trend Micro

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


20

Trustis

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


21

Trustwave

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


22

T-Systems

1

 

3

2

 

 

 


23

Wells Fargo

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


23

Initial Round

1

1

10

1

0

9

1


23

Final Round

0

0

13

0

0

10

0

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:04 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Cc: David Rudin (LCA); 'Marc Braner'; 'Jay Kendry'
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Tally of Results of Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope
(Membership vs. Participation)

 

Here are both redlined versions.  I also received a vote from Apple.  Here
is a revised tally.

 


 

 

A

B

C

D

E

H

I


1

Apple

2

1

 

 

 

3

 


2

BuyPass

3

 

1

 

2

 

 


3

Comodo

 

 

1

 

 

 

2


4

DigiCert

 

3

2

5

4

 

1


5

Entrust

 

 

2

1

 

 

 


6

Globalsign

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


7

Identrust

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


8

Izenpe

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


9

Logius

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


10

Microsoft

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


11

Mozilla

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


12

Opera

 

 

1

 

2

 

 


13

Quovadis

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


14

RSA

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


15

SSC

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


16

StarCom

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


17

Symantec

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


18

Trend Micro

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


19

Trustis

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


20

Trustwave

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


21

T-Systems

1

 

3

2

 

 

 


21

Initial Round

1

1

9

1

0

8

1


21

Final Round

0

0

12

0

0

9

0

 

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:32 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Tally of Results of Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope
(Membership vs. Participation)

 

I think that previously attached redlined version I just sent was somehow a
comparison against the wrong version.  I'll try to figure out how that
happened and resend the right one, along with one that compares the 1.04
with the original 1.0.

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:22 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Tally of Results of Straw Poll on IPR Policy Scope
(Membership vs. Participation)

 

Here is what I think we have as results for our straw poll:


 

 

A

B

C

D

E

H

I


1

BuyPass

3

 

1

 

2

 

 


2

Comodo

 

 

1

 

 

 

2


3

DigiCert

 

3

2

5

4

 

1


4

Entrust

 

 

2

1

 

 

 


5

Globalsign

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


6

Identrust

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


7

Izenpe

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


8

Logius

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


9

Microsoft

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


10

Mozilla

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


11

Opera

 

 

1

 

2

 

 


12

Quovadis

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


13

RSA

 

 

1

 

 

 

 


14

SSC

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


15

StarCom

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


16

Symantec

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


17

Trend Micro

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


18

Trustis

 

 

1

 

 

2

 


19

Trustwave

 

 

 

 

 

1

 


20

T-Systems

1

 

3

2

 

 

 


20

Initial Round

1

0

9

1

0

8

1


20

Final Round

0

0

12

0

0

8

0

 

So I think the appropriate course of action is to review the attached
revised IPR Policy (which I have numbed v.1.04 to distinguish it from
v.1.03) and to decide whether to refer this issue back to the IPR Committee
for further discussion or to continue the discussion on the list.  (Please
note that to keep the recent changes more clear, the attached is a redline
of version 1.03 distributed by Marc Braner to the IPR Committee on Friday,
Oct. 19th, and not a redline of v.1.0.)  I will create a redline of the
delta between v.1.0 and the attached 1.04 and upload it to the wiki for
later distribution to anyone wanting a full comparison of the two.

Yours truly,

Ben

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121116/95aac02f/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Public mailing list