[cabfpub] Membership reinstatements

[Peter Bowen]

In https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007459.html, Jeremy asked for endorsers and stated that review would start 29 April 2016 at 17:40 UTC.

In https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007484.html, on 28 April 2016 at 15:14 UTC, Trustwave endorsed.

In https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007500.html, on 29 April 2016 at 10:31 UTC, GlobalSign endorsed.

That lead me to believe that the ballot as written was endorsed and under review the review period.  The ballot text says "Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on 13 May 2016."

I realize that there is lots of discussion, but I was under the impression that the motion either needs to be withdrawn or move to a vote at this point.

Thanks,
Peter

> On May 4, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> I'm trying to see where Ballot 169 was set forth as a real ballot and not
> just as a pre-ballot.
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Peter Bowen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 8:04 AM
> To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
> Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Membership reinstatements
> 
> Dean,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter
> 
>> 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 :-)
>> 
>> Gerv
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public