[cabfpub] Membership reinstatements
pzb at amzn.com
Wed May 4 14:04:28 UTC 2016
Based on the last three teleconference calls, the maximum possible required quorum for any ballot prior to the next call/meeting is 10. This assumes that every organization on the calls is counted as a voting member.
As of this morning we have at least 10 votes posted to the list from organizations who returned their IPR agreements complete and on time. At least one of these votes is from a CA member and one from a Browser member. It seems we have met quorum for 168, so there is no need to hold a special meeting.
We do have 169 coming up for a vote as well, with voting closing one day after the next teleconference. It was properly endorsed, so the review period is almost over. There seems to be ongoing discussion, so it may not start voting as scheduled.
> On May 4, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason we have to wait for the next call? We could hold a special
> teleconference for this purpose today, tomorrow, etc and just motion this one
> item if people are concerned about the ballot voting on 168. The bylaws state
> that it has to be done at a teleconference or meeting and that it can be
> decided by consensus. I don't think there is anything prohibiting the chair
> from calling a special teleconference?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 5:02 AM
> To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> Cc: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Membership reinstatements
> On 04/05/16 01:25, Peter Bowen wrote:
>> What do we do about parties who returned their IPR agreements later
>> than March 16? Are they all non-members until the members agree at
>> the teleconference or meeting?
> I suggest we make a list of all the members about whom there was any doubt
> whatsoever (and for whom that doubt has now been resolved by a submitted IPR
> agreement which is clearly valid), and approve them all on the next call in a
> week's time, using conditional wording which makes no determination on their
> previous status over the last few weeks:
> The meeting agrees that the following companies have submitted valid signed
> IPR agreements and that this makes them members of the Forum in good standing:
> A, B, C..."
> It would probably be a good idea for the four companies whose agreements are
> slightly non-standard to fix the issues with their agreements before next
> Thursday, and then to be included on that list.
>> What do we do about ballots now open for vote? How is quorum
>> calculated and which votes will be counted?
> I suggest we don't start the clock on any new ballots until this is resolved.
> The only open ballot is your ballot 168, on which voting began yesterday. I
> suggest the best way of dealing with that is to make sure it passes
> overwhelmingly with many votes among people whose status is not in doubt, and
> not worry too much about what the quorum would have been :-)
More information about the Public