[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering (2)

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Questions for proponents of Position 2:
>
> j) This position states that we vote, there's an IPR review, and the
> change gets made regardless of what it turns up. So encumbered
> requirements could make it into the document (perhaps with immediate
> effect, for some ballots) and we'd have to have another vote to take
> them out (which might not pass)?
>

Unfortunately, yes, this is, I believe, a correct conclusion.

Nothing in our IPR policy states that the Forum Guidelines MUST not include
any Essential Claims; merely, that the goal is to avoid that situation.
Much of our IPR policy is structured in a way as to set expectations about
exclusions, but does not mandate there be none. This is supported by the
enumerated set of options in 7.3.2 and in words like "seeks", "ordinarily",
and "encouraged" within Section 2.

I think this is extremely relevant to discussions around the section in
question - 3.2.2.4 - and the extant disclosures. As discussed during the
F2F, if (when) we see further disclosures, we will need to decide whether
to keep those methods as acceptable or remove them, preventing all CAs from
using them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161102/4a9100be/attachment.html>