[cabfpub] Trend Micro proposal comments

kirk_hall at trendmicro.com kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Thu Sep 13 22:33:48 UTC 2012

We will be posting our original Trend Micro governance proposal shortly with no changes.  Here is a response to Gerv's and Chris' questions (inline below):

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: [cabfpub] Trend Micro proposal comments

Here are some additional comments on Trend Micro's proposal, with the aim of refining and clarifying it before the next vote.

Header: "Specific details, bylaws, rules, and intra-member agreements would be drafted and approved by the Forum later if this governance proposal is approved." Would it make sense for Trend Micro and others to start that process now, so we can see what we are voting for with more specificity?

[KH] All we meant by this language is that if the Trend Micro governance proposal is adopted, it would be best to codify all of our governance rules in one set of Bylaws (primarily) and, where necessary, in intra-member agreements (I'm not sure when this would apply, but it might apply if we take on any future financial liabilities, create further IPR agreements, etc.).

Right now, Forum governance rules are scattered in several places on our wiki, and in several past ballots that were adopted.  Normal Bylaws would simply be a compilation of these past decisions (how the public list-serv is run, how ballots are done, etc.), plus rules for the new bits we would be approving in this new governance structure (like how Working Groups will be authorized and operated), plus maybe filling in a few gaps like holding annual election of a Chair and Vice-Chair, succession rules, etc. (when Tim Moses left, we really didn't have a process in place).  In that way, all the Forum governance rules would be found in once set of Bylaws.  The Bylaws would all be adopted through the same proposal-ballot process we use today.

Part A, 1: votes and voting results are not specifically mentioned here.   Are they to be included in the public part of the Forum's workings?

[KH] Yes, votes and voting results would be public - we would follow the rules we adopted in Ballot 79 - no change to this is proposed.

Part B, 1: Who draws up the Working Group charter? Is the idea that a Working Group is created when the Forum votes to approve the charter, using the normal mechanisms?

[KH] Yes, normal mechanisms.  Our thought is that a Working Group charter would be drafted and approved by the Forum members, using the same procedure as for any other proposal-ballot.

Part B, 3: Non-members of the Working Group do not have to agree to the IPR policy, but may provide comments on proposal drafts. Is that correct? Is there an issue here?

[KH] As you may remember, Trend Micro did not favor the requirement of an IPR agreement for Forum members, but others Members did - there was a fear of "submarining".

Because the Forum has decided that executing an IPR agreement is an important prerequisite for active participation in formulation of standards (i.e., talking and voting, not just listening and reading), the Forum probably needs a short-form IPR agreement for IPs who participate in a Working Group - maybe the short-form IPR agreement for IPs would simply grant a free, non-exclusive, perpetual license for any ideas that the IP contributes while participating on a Working Group that are eventually incorporated by the Forum in mandatory standards or requirements.  We would want the lightest form of IPR agreement possible for IPs in order to encourage IPs to participate - perhaps we could borrow from W3C or from IETF, if many IPs have already been willing to sign these same forms.  We think the current Forum IPR Agreement is probably too heavy for most IPs to sign, but we probably don't need IPs to sign that form because IPs will not be voting on final amendments to and adoption of proposals that come from Working Groups - only Forum Members would.

Part B, 3: If the CAB Forum itself has a meeting, are 'independent parties' (e.g. those involved in one or more working groups) permitted to attend the proceedings, perhaps with observer status for those bits not related to their working group?

[KH] Our intention was that IPs who participated in a Working Group could participate (talk but not vote - so Observer status) as to those portions of Forum meetings (including teleconferences) where the Working Group proposals were being discussed and/or voted on by Forum members.  IPs would not otherwise be present or participate as Observers in Forum meetings (including teleconferences) where other matters are discussed.  IPs would have the same access, however, to Forum agendas, vote records, and minutes on the Forum's website as the general public would.

Part C, 4: "Consider creation of an Executive Committee..." Can we either make this part of the proposal, make it not part of the proposal, or give some details as to how we will decide whether or not we need one?

[KH] We did not intend that a vote for the Trend Micro governance proposal would mean that an Executive Committee will be or must be formed - so in that regard, an Executive Committee is not a part of the Trend Micro governance proposal.

We simply wanted to raise the concept of a limited Executive Committee (but only if later and separately adopted by the Forum through a separate proposal-ballot process) to perform limited Board of Directors-like functions if the Forum Members believe we need more executive guidance (the Trend Micro proposal does not include a Board of Directors).  We included this future possibility because all of the other governance proposals included a Board of Directors with strong defined powers - an Executive Committee could be a lighter-weight, future alternative to a strong Board of Directors if the Members want to create one (e.g., to help set priorities for our projects and maybe act as a gatekeeper for pending projects so we aren't working on too many projects simultaneously - that can result in overload and lack of Member participation).

The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120913/2705041b/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the Public mailing list