[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering
Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Wed Nov 2 16:04:44 UTC 2016
Clearly there are people in the Forum who don’t agree with this analysis – I am one.
Can you clarify – do you believe Position 1 is wrong, and Position 2 is correct? Or are just weighing the two arguments without reaching a conclusion?
In any event, I am the proposer of Ballots 180 through 182 and have no interest in withdrawing the Ballots at this point, and I see no harm in continuing on our current course. This course (discussion, then review period, then voting) was laid out in each ballot and the process reviewed in some during our F2F meeting in Redmond two weeks ago. No one at the meeting objected at that time, said the procedure was wrong, or suggested a different procedure.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 8:57 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process ordering
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com<mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
So under Position 2, how do we ever get to Approval - which (under the IPR Policy) can only come AFTER the Review Period is over. Something is missing from the Position 2 process?
Can someone who supports Position 2 tell us how they think a Draft Guideline ever gets to Approval under our current Bylaws and IPR Policy?
Please see the relevant quoted sections of the IPR Policy in https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-November/008733.html to understand how that works. Most notably, please see what the IPR says regarding PAG formation - the position advanced for Position 1 is not literally supported by the existing text.
As such, we can conclude that a DG is Approved when it completes both a Ballot and an Exclusion Period - but that the formation of a PAG does not block the approval of the document.
That is, if an Essential Claim - something which only applies to FG/FMGs - is disclosed during the Review Period, the document is still "approved" at the completion of the review period (as per Section 4.1) - and the PAG convenes to determine what actions to take on the FG/FMG - as specified in the IPR policy (Section 7.1)
The extent for which I can find support for Position 1 is in the description of process in Section 2 of the IPR policy "CAB Forum will ordinarily not approve a Guideline if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on RF terms." - but the IPR policy does not provide any further mechanisms or guidance as to how that statement can be supported.
Oh, and I would note the Key Definitions of 8.3
d. “Draft Guideline” means a version of a CAB Forum guideline that has not been approved as a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline, regardless of whether or not the Draft Guideline has been published.
e. “Final Guideline” is any version of a Draft Guideline that the Participants have agreed is a final version of such Draft Guideline pursuant to the CAB Forum process for approving Final Guidelines.
f. “Final Maintenance Guideline” is an errata to or amendment of an existing CAB Forum Final Guideline.
Given that our Bylaws establish the "process for approving Final Guidelines" is a ballot, then it naturally follows that Position 1 means that all Review Periods shall be 60 days - because it lacks approval. If we accept that a Ballot occurs before, then it suggests that a 30 day review period is permissible.
I'd be curious how you believe the existing definitions can be reconciled with the Position 1 argument, and in particular, when, if ever, we can exercise a 30-day review period.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public