[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft Agenda for CABF teleconference April 27

[Ryan Sleevi]

Apologies that I was not clearer.

Yes, I am specifically proposing a Ballot. I'm proposing that such a Ballot
needs to at least answer the four questions I raised. I was not trying to
raise them for you to answer, I was trying to raise them as important
issues for the Forum to resolve if you feel that it is not clear and
unambiguous that Microsoft's vote did not count.

I realize you wanted to resolve it informally with the Doodle poll. The
concern raised by several people was to use our Ballot process to resolve
this ambiguity. We have used this Ballot process before to resolve
ambiguity, and to resolve questions of the operating mode of the Forum.

Leaving the IP Review Period in an "undetermined" status is highly
undesirable, because it suggests future Ballots may also result in an
'undetermined' status, and the IP encumbrances of members left uncertain.

My question to both you and other members are whether this Ballot - to
resolve the status of 194 - should address any other questions than the 4 I
raised.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> You ask a lot of questions, and I don’t have answers right now for most of
> them.
>
>
>
> The only way to determine if Ballot 194 passed or failed is to figure out
> whether Microsoft’s vote did or did not count as valid under our Bylaws.
> Some say it did count, some say no, and we don’t have any method in our
> Bylaws do determine conflicts like that.
>
>
>
> I suppose someone could file a new Ballot to vote on “Did Microsoft’s vote
> on Ballot 194 comply with the Bylaws?” and we could get a final vote on
> that, which would settle the matter about Ballot 194.  (I tried to do that
> informally with the Doodle poll, but some people objected to that process.)
>
>
>
> So I think we will have to settle for “Undetermined” or similar, and move
> on.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2017 2:07 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>; Kirk Hall <
> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CABF teleconference
> April 27
>
>
>
> I thought it was concluded that Ballot 194 had failed, but if there's
> still ambiguity, we should resolve that post-haste.
>
>
>
> There's some important questions that arise from your answer:
>
> 1) What happens to the IP obligations of members for such "undetermined"
> ballots?
>
> 2) What happens for future ballots, should the situation arise?
>
> 3) What happens if Ballot 197 fails?
>
> 4) What constitutes the legitimate start of a Review Period? That is, does
> the mere act of the Chair sending such formally constitute such notice? Is
> this true even in question of the Bylaws?
>
>
>
> I would hope such a Ballot would provide complete guidance on such
> matters, by addressing Ballot 194's status, the "Review Notice", the
> clarifications on voting (e.g. sent, submitted, posted, delivered, via
> shall all be measured by this means). As this would not affect any of the
> documents, we could complete such a vote within 14 days.
>
>
>
> I'm curious whether there are any other concerns that such a Ballot should
> try to address so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever with respect to
> Ballot 194's status, and which might serve as a model for the future in the
> determination of such ambiguity. This is similar to the readoption of our
> documents in Ballots 180 - 182, to attempt to resolve such ambiguities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170424/b043eac6/attachment-0003.html>