[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

Rich Smith richard.smith at comodo.com
Tue Nov 8 17:59:13 UTC 2016

My suggestion as the best procedure of addressing all concerns stated 
thus far is:

* Draft ballot
* Discussion
* Vote
* IPR Review
* IF ANY Exclusion Notice is filed, previous vote is nullified and PAG 
is convened with all that that entails, AND the ballot MUST pass another 
full vote before it is to be considered an Approved/Final Guideline
* IF no Exclusion Notice is filed ballot is considered an Approved/Final 

I think this would properly address the concerns of both groups, and I 
believe would only require changes to the Bylaws, not the IPR.

On 11/8/2016 11:36 AM, Gervase Markham via Public wrote:
> On 08/11/16 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>> I appreciate the attempt to appeal to authority, but as it stands, and
>> as was echo'd on the call and the list, the best path to get us into a
>> clear state is to ensure that a ballot, regarding process and policy, is
>> held.
> :-|
> Position 1 and Position 2 are attempts to explain what the two sides
> think the current policy means. So we could ballot either of them, or we
> could ballot something else (a consensus position). I understand that
> you would vote No to Position 1, and yes to Position 2. Do you have
> ideas about how Position 2 could be improved to take account of the
> concerns of those who hold Position 1?
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

More information about the Public mailing list