[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 20:41:19 UTC 2017

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> Considering that this very exact scenario was repeatedly discussed in the
> Forum and the calls regarding our process, and the intent was very much
> that the act of "submiting" something is "to post", and that "to post"
> means to ensure it is publicly distributed and archived, the belief at the
> time was that "submit" means the plain reading of it.

For reference,

"2.3(j) - Again, assume the Chair fails in any of these steps, what do you
believe happens / should happen?
  1) Chair fails to distribute Exclusion Notices within two business days
after the Review Period closes
  2) Chair distributes an incomplete set of Exclusion Notices
  3) Chair's MTA represents to the person making the Exclusion Notice that
mail has been successfully queued for delivery (e.g. the mail server
reports to the sender that it's accepted)
     a) Chair encounters a mailbox corruption issue and loses exclusion
     b) Chair's antivirus system later quarantines the mail so that it's
not kept in their inbox, but instead moved to a quarantine"

Virginia responded in

"VMF: The Bylaws are going to be as long as War and Peace if we try to
address everything that could possibly go wrong. Earthquakes, floods,
locusts, meteors. The general rule should be that if the Chair “fails” for
some reason to send out the Exclusion Notices, it does not affect the
validity of the Exclusion Notices. However, if the member does not file the
Exclusion Notice properly, it would affect the validity of the notice. I
hope the difference is clear. "

This was then countered with
"The previous proposed resolution was to require Exclusion Notices be
submitted to the public at cabforum.org list. This avoids some of the
ambiguity, but seems to materially overlap with the IPR Policy (Section
4.3). My hope was that we might find a way within the bylaws to accomodate
this, without the corresponding IPR Policy change, but it may be that the
latter is unavoidable. Equally, the 'uncertainty' aspect is one we could
also accept - and it would be a matter for the Courts to evaluate the
evidence as to whether the Exclusion was valid. If that's the direction we
want to go, it seems useful if we can quantify anything that would make
that a more concrete, and less nebulous, matter to ascertain."

This change was introduced in
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009261.html , with the
previous version having been

I think you can see this understanding was at least shared by Apple's
Lawyers who drafted this, that "send Exclusion Notices to the Public Mail
list as a safeguard" was specifically meant to address the set of scenarios
we now face with votes being sent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/a923f913/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list