[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering (2)
sleevi at google.com
Thu Nov 3 02:54:46 UTC 2016
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Geoff Keating via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> > a) Is the process that the PAG may modify the ballot before the vote,
> based on its conclusions? If so, do we need a new Discussion Period after
> the PAG? If not, and the PAG makes "recommendations", how are those
> recommendations accounted for, procedurally? Starting again?
> Typically you would start with a vote to accept or reject the
> recommendations. Then, if accepted, they will contain instructions for the
> Chair on how to proceed.
> I imagine the kinds of recommendations you might get are:
> - Accept the ballot as-is (in which case, approving the recommendation
> amounts to approving the ballot)
> - Cease work on the ballot and reject it
> - Modify the ballot (in which case, the Chair would presumably start the
> process again, with the modified ballot)
> - Set up a further working group (in which case, approving the
> recommendations approves the creation of the working group)
7.3.2 addresses the hypotheticals here more concretely:
After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude:
a. The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the work on the
Guideline to continue.
b. The CAB Forum should be instructed to consider designing around the
c. The PAG should seek further information and evaluation, including and
not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under
which CAB Forum RF licensing requirements may be met.
d. The project relating to the Draft Guideline in question should be
e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should be rescinded.
f. Alternative licensing terms should be considered.
However, on a procedural level, items B, D, and E all require some
modification, and I don't think that the actual taken would or could be
conducted only by the PAG. That is, the findings of the PAG should not be
binding on all members of the Forum, without some further Forum-wide ballot
to approve or reject the recommendations of the PAG. I believe that's
consistent with what you're proposing, but given the fact that there's been
disagreement about the IPR policy, I thought it best to spell out that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public