[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Nov 8 20:12:24 UTC 2016

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Ryan – if Gerv’s proposal were followed by a ballot to the effect of: ‘for
> the purposes of ballots 180-182, our bylaws and IPR policy shall be
> interpreted to mean <insert Mark Braner’s interpretation>’ and that ballot
> were to pass, would that address your immediate concern and allow us to
> proceed with these ballots while we’re figuring out how to amend the bylaws
> going forward?

I think the best solution is the one that Eric's proposed, and which Gerv
has at least expressed some agreement on -

In particular, we have to resolve the issue highlighted by Gerv, and echo'd
by Eric - which is spelling out the ballot process. As it stands, we don't
agree that Ballot 180 - 182 are consistent with the bylaws, so I'm not even
sure that the first statement can be seen as meaningful.

And let's recall - there's still the issue with Ballots 181/182,
independent of any Bylaws discussion, about what happens if/when Exclusion
Notices are received. That process isn't clear. If we want 181/182 to
provide that clarity, we need to get that structure in place before
pursuing those as ballots.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161108/c6ecb7f8/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list