[cabfpub] Peter's ballot process proposal

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Fri Nov 18 17:33:41 UTC 2016

I don't recall anyone saying the process we are following for Ballots 180-182 is improper or violates our IPR Policy and/or Bylaws -- only that there are other possible interpretations and processes that some would prefer to follow for ballots in the future.  And I know there are a number of members who strongly believe the process we are following for Ballots 180-182 is the only process allowed under our IPR Process and Bylaws.

If we pause or restart Ballots 180-182, we push out the date when we have what can be said to be (with some confidence) properly-adopted Final Guidelines.  Until we have properly-adopted Final Guidelines, it will be hard if not impossible to proceed with new ballots for Maintenance Guidelines that amend the Final Guidelines.

I suppose if a member feels strongly that Ballots 180-182 violate our IPR Policy and Bylaws, the best course is to vote no in January.  I don't think anyone is trying to prevent further discussion of this issue, but I'm not sure we will benefit much from repeating the same points over and over.  I would also ask that any member who thinks Ballots 180-182 violate our IPR Policy and/or Bylaws to double check with their IP attorneys to make certain they agree with that conclusion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:23 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>; Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Peter's ballot process proposal

On 18/11/16 01:46, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> The topics of discussion for the IP Task Force meeting will be:
> 1.  Moving forward with the current ballots 180-182 to validate the 
> existing Guidelines; and
> 2.  Settling on a process for future ballots.
> It’s important that members view these as separate issues.  

If any members or their counsel think that the process being followed for ballots 180-182 does not match (or cannot with confidence be said to
match) what our documents currently say, and therefore would not result in the goal of "validating the existing Guidelines", will there be an opportunity to make that point, with rationale? Or will such members need to wait for the 60 days to complete and then vote No on those ballots?

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org

More information about the Public mailing list