[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Apr 18 17:57:25 UTC 2017

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <philliph at comodo.com>

> Well if you think trying to toss out a vote on an absurd technicality to
> be ‘the spirit of comity, respect, and productive contribution’.


I can understand you may disagree with the concerns, but I hope you do not
disagree that there are valid concerns. I will note that a number of
members and Interested Parties - Eric Mill, Peter Bowen, Gervase Markham,
Dean Coclin - have agreed with the fact that there IS an issue here.

Regardless of your personal feelings about the ballot, or those of your
employer, I do hope you can see how having a contested vote, decided by a
tiebreaker ballot, that at very best was questionable as to whether it
followed the Bylaws, which introduces IP encumbrances and obligations, and
which the Chair has to date disregarded these concerns and proposed a
'majority rule via Doodle poll' is, from a legal perspective, undesirable.

If the Forum is unable to follow its Bylaws, it calls into question whether
or not the organization is able to adhere to its Antitrust Policy, and
calls into question whether or not the organization's IP Policy between
members is enforceable. I encourage you that, regardless of whether you
personally feel they are legitimate, you speak with the rest of your
organization, and in particular, their legal team. Your colleague Robin
routinely reads out the Antitrust Statement on behalf of the Forum. If the
Forum cannot follow its Bylaws, or disputes whether or not it is engaging
in a practice that would be anti-competitive on the basis of a doodle poll
by the Chair, you surely can understand the challenges that would face.

If you would take a moment to understand these concerns, and recognize that
this can and should be resolved by a Ballot among the Forum, it would be
greatly appreciated. Alternatively, I would request that you work with your
colleagues to ensure your views represent the formal views of Comodo, and
that your contributions are in that spirit. I have certainly been working
with our team here at Google to make sure to firmly and clearly articulate
these concerns, because if this process is adopted as valid, then our
concerns about the CA/Browser Forum being unable to follow its Bylaws will
be realized.

This is a serious matter. Please treat it as such.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/d3d8d93d/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list