[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)
sleevi at google.com
Tue Apr 18 12:40:30 MST 2017
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
> Refusing to count multiple votes from one organization is not the same
> issue as counting a vote received on the public list after the voting
> period closed. They are not analogous as the two scenarios present two
> different risks.
Improper votes are improper votes?
> The vote was received via the public mailing list (thanks to Kirk
> forwarding the vote), but after the voting period expired. The bylaws don’t
> dictate that the member must make the vote via the public mailing list,
> just that all voting will occur there.
To make sure I understand this argument in the context of
The bylaws state the following:
Section 2.2 states:
(d) Upon completion of the discussion period, Members shall have exactly
seven calendar days for voting, with the deadline clearly communicated in
the ballot and sent via the Public Mail List. All voting will take place
via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will
not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose.
Section 2.3 states
(c) As described in Section 2.2(d), upon completion of such discussion
period, Members shall have exactly seven calendar days to vote on a Draft
Guideline Ballot, with the deadline clearly communicated in the ballot sent
via the Public Mail List. All voting will take place via the Public Mail
List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered
valid, and will not be counted for any purpose. The Chair may send an email
to the Public Mail List reminding Members of when the voting period opens
Section 5.2 states:
(c) Messages formally proposing a Forum ballot (including ballots to
establish, modify, or terminate Working Groups), individual votes, vote and
quorum counts, and messages announcing ballot outcomes and voting
The word "submit" occurs 9 times within the Baseline Requirements. Section
2.2, Section 2.3, Section 4.1, and Section 5.3. With the exclusion of
Section 5.3, the references in Section 4.1 all related to "vote submitted"
or "votes submitted", so we should conclude those are the same.
Within Section 2.3, the following occurrences exist:
(f) The Review Period will continue to the end of the 30- or 60-day period,
as applicable, regardless of the number of Exclusion Notices filed pursuant
to the IPR Policy during such period, if any. No later than 3 business days
after the conclusion of the applicable Review Period, the Chair will
distribute any Exclusion Notices *submitted *in accordance with Section 4.2
of the IPR Policy via the Public Mail List; provided, however, that the
Chair may distribute such Exclusion Notices earlier.
(g) In addition to following the process for *submitting *Exclusion Notices
set forth in Section 4 of the IPR Policy, Members will also send Exclusion
Notices to the Public Mail List as a safeguard.
In your view, the act of submission does not require authorization to post
on the Public Mail List, does not require acceptance by the Public Mail
List, nor does it require distribution as part of the public mail list.
Your view is that "All voting will take place via the Public Mail List"
does not correspond with the deadline of "Members shall have exactly seven
days for voting" - that is, provided that a vote is (eventually) shared on
the Public Mail List, that the requirement is met.
Is it consistent, then, that the act of "submitted Exclusion Notices" does
not require confirmation of the receipt by the Chair? If the Chair claims
not to have received an Exclusion Notice after the 3 business days
afforded, is that exclusion valid?
I realize this sounds very much like "Bylawyer-ing", but I hope it
clarifies the importance of these concerns. If this interpretation of
"submit" stands, and Microsoft's vote is accepted, it means that Ballot 183
has failed to meaningfully address the concerns related to IP disclosures,
in a way that creates a singular and central point of failure or abuse.
While we assume good faith in all participants, the risk becomes
unacceptable if there is no assurance that exclusions will either
meaningfully be disclosed (if done by other parties) or accepted (if done
on our part). The key advantage of the Forum, carefully negotiated over
years of effort, which is that of the IP protection for such contributions,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public