[cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19
sleevi at google.com
Tue Jan 3 19:32:45 MST 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7?
> >>>Pursuant to Section 7.3.1, the PAG is convened by the PAG Chair, and
> the timing is at the discretion of the PAG Chair. So if the PAG Chair
> decides that the PAG should be formed before the vote on the Ballot is
> complete in light of the Exclusion Notices received, then that’s what
> should happen and voting will be suspended. This makes sense because
> members would not want to vote on the Ballot without knowing the PAG’s
> conclusion on the Exclusions. Voting on the Ballot would then take place
> after the PAG provides its conclusion on the Exclusion(s). Voting members
> would then have the PAG conclusion and their own patent analyses available
> prior to voting (unless the PAG does not recommend proceeding to a vote, in
> which case the proponents will likely withdraw the Ballot).
I suppose a specific question: I have read the IPR Policy and Bylaws
numerous times, but as I indicated to Kirk, I cannot find any text that
supports this view: That it is possible for a Ballot to be suspended upon
the formation of a PAG or unilaterally by the Chair. I realize both
possibilities have been discussed for future improvements, but I do not
believe our current process allows it.
As you and Kirk have clearly taken a different read of our current process
and workmode, I'm curious if you can support that interpretation with text
from our Bylaws or IPR Policy. While I understand why it would be
desirable, particularly under the interpretation of our process that was
being used for these Ballots, I don't believe it's well supported - but
would be happy to know where I'm mistaken.
The other questions I asked were questions which I believe the IPR Policy
and Bylaws do answer, and for which I think their answers arguably
highlight flaws with an interpretation that voting is "suspended".
Given that a fully endorsed ballot was put forward, given that it concluded
a 60 day review period, I cannot help but conclude that voting has begun,
and will end on Jan 7, and whatever the result, that will be the 'end' of
It may be that members vote No, due to the fact that disclosures were made.
It may be that members vote Yes, because the disclosures made does not
negatively impact the value afforded by a clear and unambiguous document.
But I do not want it to be left as a zombie ballot in a 'limbo' state after
I do not want it to prevent further ballots after Jan 7.
I do not want it to fail quorum because the Chair didn't adhere to the
Bylaws or IPR policy, however undesirable that may be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public