[cabfpub] Membership reinstatements

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
wrote:

> Aargh, when did we discuss that? I seem to recall Peter quoting the IPR
> ballot that their status would be “suspended” until such time that they
> signed. As you correctly point out, such a term is not specified in our
> bylaws but from what I recall from a recent CA/B Forum call, there was
> consensus around reinstating their membership once they signed.
>
You proposed that, but there wasn't necessarily consensus.

> This is consistent with the definition of the word “suspended” in this
> context which means something is temporarily withheld, as opposed to
> “revoked” which I believe would trigger a re-application.
>
I'm not sure we can argue that, given that the Bylaws don't make use of the
term revoked, so we can't compare it's contextual interpretation.

If you review
https://cabforum.org/2016/02/04/ballot-157-adopt-version-1-2-of-the-intellectual-property-rights-policy/
, and using the contextual interpretation argument, the clause immediately
preceding indicates that the IPR policy is a condition of the continued
Membership in the CA/B Forum. This would, contextually, argue that
suspension is the discontinuation of membership, which would be consistent
with the Bylaws, for which execution of the IPR policy is a condition of
Membership.


> Nonetheless, if members feel that we should go through the formality of
> reinstating membership on a future call, I would not oppose it. However, we
> would need to do some homework to determine who signed and when so as to
> determine the list of companies that need to be formally reinstated. Or I
> guess someone could make a motion that all those companies that signed
> after the date are hereby reinstated.
>

https://cabforum.org/2016/03/31/2016-03-31-minutes/

"Bruce suggested we have a period for their suspension and that if they
don't respond within that period, they would have to reapply. Jeremy said
this would need a ballot. Jeremy said the Governance working group should
consider this as part of the bylaws reform"

I know I'm being pedantic here, and I have no doubt that it's annoying at
nitpicky, but given the state of our Bylaws, it seems best to treat it as
such. However, in the interim, the above members can continue participating
as Interested Parties; it would just be the matter of the Membership list
and voting privileges which would not be resumed until our next
teleconference or meeting (for which I expect things would be
non-controversial)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160503/b9824ced/attachment.html