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

[Jeremy Rowley]

The converse is also true. If mailing list issues determine the validity of exclusion notices, we are unfairly endangering a member’s IP. This looks like why we added 2.3(f) – to help reduce both risks.

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:43 PM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)

 

 

 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> > wrote:

Ryan,

 

Am I understanding correctly that Google’s concern is that the ambiguity of whether this ballot had the proper majority required could result in a member with Essential Claims privately determining that the ballot did not pass, that the initiation of the Review period was therefore illegitimate, and therefore the license required by the IPR agreement does not apply?

 

Yes, both for this Ballot and, in applying the definition used here as accepted precedent, for conducting future Ballots (and IP exclusions) in a manner that would directly put members at risk.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/eed058b2/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/eed058b2/attachment-0001.p7s>